Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

142 F.2d 443

Docket No. 10483.

Fink v. United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 14, 1944.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1944-04-14

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1946

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““See. 2. Prohibition — (a)—Prohibition against higher than maximum rents. Regardless of any contract, agreement, lea.se or other obligation heretofore or here after entered into, no person shall demand or receive any rent for or in connection with the use or occupancy on and after the effective date of regulation of any room in a hotel or rooming house within the Defense-Rental Area higher than the maximum rents provided by this regulation; and no person shall offer, solicit, attempt, or agree to do any of the foregoing. Lower rents than those provided by this regulation may be demanded or received. * * * [Emphasis supplied] “Sec. 13 (a) (5). ‘Person’ includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons, or legal successor or representative of any of the foregoing, and includes the United States or any agency thereof, or any other government, or any of its political subdivisions, or any agency of any of the foregoing.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Maloof v. United States

Relies on Yakus v. United States · Bowles v. Willingham

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1944-04-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Paul Angelillo, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

¶2Charles H. Carr, U. S. Atty., and James M. Carter and Ronald Abernethy, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Los Angeles, Cal., Fleming James, Jr., Director, Litigation Div., Office of Price Administration, David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, and Edward H. Hatton, Atty., OPA, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

¶4MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

¶5Appellant was charged by information with having violated §§ 4(a) and 205(b) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix §§ 904(a) and 925(b).1 The information was in four counts. Count 1 was dismissed. Appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, waived trial by jury, was tried by the court and was adjudged guilty on counts 2, 3 and 4. Imposition of sentence on count 3 was suspended. Appellant was sentenced on counts 2 and 4 and has appealed.

¶6Appellant’s principal contention is that the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 is unconstitutional. The Act was held constitutional by the Supreme Court on March 27, 1944.2 Appellant’s contention is therefore rejected.

¶7One of appellant’s assignments of error asserts that the information “failed to state a public offense,” meaning, we suppose, that it failed to charge an offense against the United States. There is no merit in this assignment. Each count of the information charged an offense against the United States, namely a violation of §§ 4(a) and 205(b) of the Emergency Price Control *444Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix §§ 904 (a) and 925(b).

¶8Three of appellant’s assignments assert that the court erred in failing to acquit appellant. There is no merit in these assignments. The judgment is amply supported by evidence.

¶9Two of appellant’s assignments are to the admission of evidence. The evidence referred to was received without objection. Hence these assignments need not be considered.

¶10Judgment affirmed.

/142/f2d/443 · .json · Public domain