Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co.

255 U.S. 98, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 524, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1796
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 28, 1921
Docket357
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 255 U.S. 98 (Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co.) 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
Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co., 255 U.S. 98, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 524, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1796 (1921).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

Various dealers in wearing apparel in the City of Denver filed their bill to enjoin the United States Attorney from instituting prosecution^ against them under § 4 of the Lever Act on the ground that Congress had no power to adopt that section because a state of peace prevailed, or, if a state of war existed, the regulation of the price for which wearing apparel should be sold was beyond the authority of Congress, and for the further reason that the section in question was void for repugnancy to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution because of its vagueness, want of standard, and denial of the equal protection of the laws. The case was submitted on bill and answer and the statute was held void because of its uncertainty and want of standard, and its enforcement was enjoined.

That-the court was right in this ruling, which is the subject now before us upon direct appeal brought by the Government, is not open in view of the decision this day in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, ante, >81, and, for the reasons stated in that case, it is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result. Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

Cardinal Sporting Goods Co. v. Eagleton
213 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Missouri, 1963)
State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc.
151 A.2d 430 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
State v. Kinney Building Drug Stores, Inc.
151 A.2d 430 (Essex County Court, 1959)
Toomer v. Witsell
73 F. Supp. 371 (E.D. South Carolina, 1947)
State v. Sentner
298 N.W. 813 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States
14 F. Supp. 121 (S.D. New York, 1936)
Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp
7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Georgia, 1934)
City of Jackson v. McPherson
138 So. 604 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
Sinclair v. State
132 So. 581 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)
State v. Bevins
230 N.W. 865 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Kincaid v. United States
35 F.2d 235 (W.D. Louisiana, 1929)
White v. Federal Radio Commmission
29 F.2d 113 (N.D. Illinois, 1928)
Manley v. State
144 S.E. 170 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co.
274 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 1927)
Wrigley Pharmaceutical Co. v. Cameron
16 F.2d 290 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1926)
Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Cline
9 F.2d 176 (D. Colorado, 1925)
Morrison v. Work
266 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 U.S. 98, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 524, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedrow-v-a-t-lewis-son-dry-goods-co-scotus-1921.