Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc.

Supreme Court

Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc.

352 U.S. 977, 77 S. Ct. 381, 1 L. Ed. 2d 363, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1433

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 21, 1957

DocketNo. 599

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 352 U.S. 977 (Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc., 352 U.S. 977, 77 S. Ct. 381, 1 L. Ed. 2d 363, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1433 (1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Probable jurisdiction is noted. In view of the refusal of the appellant to approve rental schedules for furnished apartments in appellee’s apartment project unless appellee agrees not to rent apartments for periods of less than 30 days, a cause of action for injunctive relief is stated. An injunction restraining enforcement of an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution cannot, however, be granted by any District Court unless the application is heard and determined by a three-judge District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 2282. The judgment is [978]*978therefore reversed and the case is remanded for consideration by a three-judge District Court.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Melvin Richter and Herman Marcuse for appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Probable jurisdiction is noted. In view of the refusal of the appellant to approve rental schedules for furnished apartments in appellee’s apartment project unless appellee agrees not to rent apartments for periods of less than 30 days, a cause of action for injunctive relief is stated. An injunction restraining enforcement of an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution cannot, however, be granted by any District Court unless the application is heard and determined by a three-judge District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 2282. The judgment is [978]*978therefore reversed and the case is remanded for consideration by a three-judge District Court.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Melvin Richter and Herman Marcuse for appellant.

L.O. Ward v. William G. Coleman, Jr., Individually, and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States of America, Russell E. Train, Individually, and as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America, and Admiral Owen W. Silar, Individually, and as Commandant United States Coast Guard, United States of America, L.O. Ward D/B/A L.O. Ward Oil and Gas Operations v. United States

598 F.2d 1187 (Tenth Circuit, 1979)

Norton Ex Rel. Chiles v. Mathews

427 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court, 1976)

Juan Rigores Sardino v. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States

361 F.2d 106 (Second Circuit, 1966)

Harrison v. McNamara

228 F. Supp. 406 (D. Connecticut, 1964)

United States of America v. H. R. Lemay

322 F.2d 100 (Fifth Circuit, 1963)

Flemming v. Nestor

363 U.S. 603 (Supreme Court, 1960)

City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

358 U.S. 639 (Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 U.S. 977, 77 S. Ct. 381, 1 L. Ed. 2d 363, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-housing-administration-v-darlington-inc-scotus-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack