United States v. Hirahara

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Hirahara

164 F.2d 157, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 1875

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 31, 1947·No. No. 11576·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing an action brought under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, as, amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e), to recover treble damages for violation of maximum price regulations on lumber.

The situation in this case is identical with that in Porter v. Koike, No. 11,575, 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 155. There, as here, the substitution of the United States as party plaintiff and a summary reversal are sought. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Porter v. Koike the motion for substitution of the United States as party plaintiff is granted and the order of dismissal, 69 F.Supp. 441, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing an action brought under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, as, amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e), to recover treble damages for violation of maximum price regulations on lumber.

The situation in this case is identical with that in Porter v. Koike, No. 11,575, 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 155. There, as here, the substitution of the United States as party plaintiff and a summary reversal are sought. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Porter v. Koike the motion for substitution of the United States as party plaintiff is granted and the order of dismissal, 69 F.Supp. 441, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Hirahara, 164 F.2d 157, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 1875 (9th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

164 F.2d 157 (United States v. Hirahara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related