Rosenfeld v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Rosenfeld v. United States

167 F.2d 222, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2426

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1948

DocketNo. 5710

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 F.2d 222 (Rosenfeld v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenfeld v. United States, 167 F.2d 222, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2426 (4th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt of [223]*223court in disobeying an injunction which forbade violation of OPA rent regulations, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00, or imprisonment for a period of six months. We think that the facts in evidence amply sustain the action of the District Judge in holding appellant guilty of contempt. We do not think, however, that the facts justify the penalty imposed. The violation of the rent regulation was of minor character, and there is no showing of a defiant attitude on the part of appellant or that he was a hardened offender. We think that he will be sufficiently punished by a fine of $500.00, or imprisonment for three months, and understand that we have power to make such modification, when we conclude that the punishment imposed was not justified by the facts. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 305, 67 S.Ct. 677. The order appealed from will be modified accordingly. As so modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt of [223]*223court in disobeying an injunction which forbade violation of OPA rent regulations, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00, or imprisonment for a period of six months. We think that the facts in evidence amply sustain the action of the District Judge in holding appellant guilty of contempt. We do not think, however, that the facts justify the penalty imposed. The violation of the rent regulation was of minor character, and there is no showing of a defiant attitude on the part of appellant or that he was a hardened offender. We think that he will be sufficiently punished by a fine of $500.00, or imprisonment for three months, and understand that we have power to make such modification, when we conclude that the punishment imposed was not justified by the facts. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 305, 67 S.Ct. 677. The order appealed from will be modified accordingly. As so modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.2d 222, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenfeld-v-united-states-ca4-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack