US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 255 U. S. 102 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co., 255 U.S. 102 (1921)

Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Company

No. 376-378

Argued October 19, 20, 1920

Decided February 28, 1921

255 U.S. 102




Decided on the authority of United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 255 U. S. 81.

264 F.8d 5 affirmed.

These were direct appeals from the district court involving the validity of part of the Food Control Act. The first was from a decree enjoining the United States Attorney from prosecuting dealers in milk. The other two were from judgments quashing indictments based upon sales of potatoes.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the first of the above cases, the Creamery Company and others, appellees, filed their bill in the court below chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 255 U. S. 103

against the United States attorney and the members of the "Federal Fair Price Committee" for an injunction to restrain prosecutions against them for selling milk at alleged unjust and unreasonable rates or charges in violation of the fourth section of the Lever Act, as reenacted in 1919, on the ground, among others, that the section was repugnant to the Constitution because of its vagueness and because it failed to provide a standard of criminality.

The United States Attorney, after challenging in his answer the right to restrain the performance by him of his official duties, admitted that, in its advisory capacity, the said Price Committee had fixed what it had deemed to be a fair price for the sale of milk, and that he intended, in the discharge of his official duty, to act upon such advice as the basis for prosecutions where such price was exceeded, and, asserting the constitutionality of the section and the want of merit in the grounds upon which it was assailed, prayed the dismissal of the bill.

A temporary injunction issued, and, the case having been submitted on the pleadings without proof, the court, stating that the sole question involved was whether the provision in question of § 4 of the Lever Act was constitutional, decided that it was not, because of its vagueness and uncertainty and of the consequent absence from it of all standard of criminality. The enforcement of said provision was therefore permanently enjoined, and, upon this appeal, the sole issue raised by the government is whether the court erred in holding the provision of the statute in question to be void for repugnancy to the Constitution. That it did not so err is fully established by the opinion this day announced in the Cohen Grocery Co. case, No. 324, ante, 255 U. S. 81, and therefore it is our duty to affirm.

The two other cases, Nos. 377 and 378, are likewise so controlled. Both were indictments for selling potatoes chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 255 U. S. 104

at prices which were alleged to be unjust and unreasonable in violation of the reenacted fourth section of the Lever Act, and, in both cases, the indictments were quashed because of the unconstitutionality of the section upon the grounds stated by the Court in the Creamery case, No. 376, and they are both here at the instance of the government because of alleged reversible error committed in so doing. It follows, for the reasons just stated and those expounded in the Cohen Grocery case, that the action below in all three cases must be, and the same is hereby,


MR. JUSTICE PITNEY and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS concur in the result.

MR. JUSTICE DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™