Joliet Oil Corp. v. Brown

Seventh Circuit

Joliet Oil Corp. v. Brown

143 F.2d 673, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1944

DocketNo. 8539

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F.2d 673 (Joliet Oil Corp. v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joliet Oil Corp. v. Brown, 143 F.2d 673, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170 (7th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

MINTON, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant is a retail dealer in gasoline. On July 12, 1943, the Office of Price Administration commenced proceedings under Procedural Regulation No. 4 to determine whether or not a suspension order should be issued against the plaintiff. After a hearing, an order was entered suspending the plaintiff from acquiring or selling gasoline for a period of ninety days but staying operation of the suspension after the first twenty days, upon condition that the plaintiff comply with the rationing regulations.

The plaintiff appealed to the hearing administrator from the order, and on October 8, 1943, the hearing administrator increased the penalty by ordering that the portion of the sentence to be put in effect be thirty days instead of twenty days.

The plaintiff thereupon filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, praying a preliminary and permanent injunction. From an order of the District Court denying the prayed for injunction, the plaintiff has appealed.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the hearing commissioner had no authority in law to enter a suspension order. This precise question was presented to the Supreme Court in the case of L. P. Steuart & Bro., Inc., v. Bowles, Administrator, 64 S. Ct. 1097, and was decided on May 22, 1944, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention. On the authority of that case, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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

MINTON, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant is a retail dealer in gasoline. On July 12, 1943, the Office of Price Administration commenced proceedings under Procedural Regulation No. 4 to determine whether or not a suspension order should be issued against the plaintiff. After a hearing, an order was entered suspending the plaintiff from acquiring or selling gasoline for a period of ninety days but staying operation of the suspension after the first twenty days, upon condition that the plaintiff comply with the rationing regulations.

The plaintiff appealed to the hearing administrator from the order, and on October 8, 1943, the hearing administrator increased the penalty by ordering that the portion of the sentence to be put in effect be thirty days instead of twenty days.

The plaintiff thereupon filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, praying a preliminary and permanent injunction. From an order of the District Court denying the prayed for injunction, the plaintiff has appealed.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the hearing commissioner had no authority in law to enter a suspension order. This precise question was presented to the Supreme Court in the case of L. P. Steuart & Bro., Inc., v. Bowles, Administrator, 64 S. Ct. 1097, and was decided on May 22, 1944, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention. On the authority of that case, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F.2d 673, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joliet-oil-corp-v-brown-ca7-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack