Stanley Stout and Frances Stout v. United States

229 F.2d 918, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 6, 1956
Docket23753_1
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 229 F.2d 918 (Stanley Stout and Frances Stout v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stanley Stout and Frances Stout v. United States, 229 F.2d 918, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656 (2d Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs complain that the existing wheat quotas imposed under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. prevent them from raising sufficient grain to feed their poultry and cattle and from properly rotating *919 their crops. They brought this action against the United States seeking to have these provisions declared unconstitutional and their enforcement enjoined, because of their discriminatory voting provisions.

Although Blattner v. United States, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 628, affirmed 3 Cir., 223 F.2d 468, which seems directly in point, is authority for dismissal on the merits under the rule stated in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87, L.Ed. 122, we do not reach the substantive question. Neither by the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, nor otherwise has the United States consented to be sued in this type of action. Brownell v. Ketcham Wire & Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 121; Blattner v. United States, 3 Cir., 223 F.2d 468. Without such consent, it is immune to suit. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant, and hence the action was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Littell v. United States
191 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
Conner v. United States
947 F. Supp. 1267 (N.D. Indiana, 1996)
White v. Commissioner
899 F. Supp. 767 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)
Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Chasin
653 F. Supp. 1200 (E.D. Michigan, 1986)
Hutchinson v. United States
677 F.2d 1322 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
No. 79-4542
677 F.2d 1322 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Enfinger v. Enfinger
452 F. Supp. 553 (M.D. Georgia, 1978)
Jules Hairstylists of Maryland, Inc. v. United States
268 F. Supp. 511 (D. Maryland, 1967)
United States v. Ein Chemical Corporation
161 F. Supp. 238 (S.D. New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 F.2d 918, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-stout-and-frances-stout-v-united-states-ca2-1956.