Porter v. Rushing

Eighth Circuit

Porter v. Rushing

157 F.2d 263

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 1946

DocketNo. 13383

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 157 F.2d 263 (Porter v. Rushing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. Rushing, 157 F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court on its own motion dismissed the complaint of the Administrator in two counts charging violation by the appellee of the provisions of the Rent Regulations for Housing (8 F.R. 7322), issued pursuant to § 201(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. A. App endix, § 921(d), and praying for judgment for damages, penalty and an injunction. The judgment was entered on the ground that the maxim de minimis non curat lex and the fair and honest administration of the law required the dismissal. Since the courts are not vested with discretion either to deny enforcement of or to withhold the statutory remedies provided by Congress, Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 8 Cir., 146 F.2d 325; Porter v. McRae, 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 213, the case should not have been dismissed. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court on its own motion dismissed the complaint of the Administrator in two counts charging violation by the appellee of the provisions of the Rent Regulations for Housing (8 F.R. 7322), issued pursuant to § 201(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. A. App endix, § 921(d), and praying for judgment for damages, penalty and an injunction. The judgment was entered on the ground that the maxim de minimis non curat lex and the fair and honest administration of the law required the dismissal. Since the courts are not vested with discretion either to deny enforcement of or to withhold the statutory remedies provided by Congress, Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 8 Cir., 146 F.2d 325; Porter v. McRae, 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 213, the case should not have been dismissed. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F.2d 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-rushing-ca8-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack