翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Shynkarenko
・ United States v. Simms
・ United States v. Singer Mfg. Co.
・ United States v. Johns
・ United States v. Johnson
・ United States v. Johnson (1863)
・ United States v. Johnson (1899)
・ United States v. Johnson (1911)
・ United States v. Johnson (1944)
・ United States v. Johnson (1946)
・ United States v. Johnson (1966)
・ United States v. Johnson (1968)
・ United States v. Johnson (1982)
・ United States v. Johnson (1987)
・ United States v. Johnson (2000)
United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943)
・ United States v. Jones (2012)
・ United States v. Jones (disambiguation)
・ United States v. Jordan
・ United States v. Ju Toy
・ United States v. Juvenile Male
・ United States v. Kagama
・ United States v. Kahriger
・ United States v. Kaiser
・ United States v. Karo
・ United States v. Kebodeaux
・ United States v. Keenan
・ United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
・ United States v. Kil Soo Lee
・ United States v. Kilbride


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943) : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943)

''United States v. Johnson'', , was a United States Supreme Court case.
==Background==
The tenant brought suit against the landlord, alleging violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942,〔56 Stat. 23〕 and demanding treble damages and reasonable attorney fees. The landlord filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The government intervened and filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The district court dismissed the tenant's complaint on the grounds that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power.〔48 F.Supp. 833〕
Before entry of the order dismissing the complaint, the government filed a motion to reopen the case on the ground that it was collusive and did not involve a real case or controversy. The affidavit of the plaintiff, submitted by the Government on its motion to dismiss the suit as collusive, shows without contradiction that he brought the present proceeding in a fictitious name; that it was instituted as a "friendly suit" at appellee's request; that the plaintiff did not employ, pay, or even meet, the attorney who appeared of record in his behalf; that he had no knowledge who paid the $ 15 filing fee in the district court, but was assured by appellee that as plaintiff he would incur no expense in bringing the suit; that he did not read the complaint which was filed in his name as plaintiff; that in his conferences with the appellee and appellee's attorney of record, nothing was said concerning treble damages and he had no knowledge of the amount of the judgment prayed until he read of it in a local newspaper. Appellee's counter-affidavit did not deny these allegations. It admitted that appellee's attorney had undertaken to procure an attorney to represent the plaintiff and had assured the plaintiff that his presence in court during the trial of the cause would not be necessary. It appears from the district court's opinion that no brief was filed on the plaintiff's behalf in that court.
The Government's motion was denied. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court under § 2 of the Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 752, 28 U. S. C. § 349a, and assigns as error both the ruling of the district court on the constitutionality of the Act, and its refusal to reopen and dismiss the case as collusive.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943)」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.