Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

258 U.S. 65

66 L. Ed. 467

Docket No. 604.

Lemke v. Homer Farmers Elevator Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 27, 1922

Submitted November 14, 1921.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1922-02-27

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co. · Commissioners of Road Improvement District No. 2 v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 6–3 · Opinion by William Rufus Day · Decided 1922-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen (1960), Volkswagen De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board (1972)

38 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

1901922193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Messrs. Wm. Lemke, of Bismarck, N. D., Karl Knox Gartner, of Washington, D. C., and Seth W. Richardson, of Fargo, N. D., for appellants.

Messrs. Wm. A. Lancaster, David F. Simpson, and Harold G. Simpson, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1

This suit was brought by companies representing 692 elevators in the state of North Dakota to enjoin the enforcement of the North Dakota Grain Grading and Inspection Act, chapter 138 of the Laws of North Dakota of 1919. This act was considered and passed upon in No. 456, Lemke v. Farmers' Grain Co. of Embden, 258 U. S. 50, 42 Sup. Ct. 244, 66 L. Ed.——, just decided.

¶2

The matter was heard before three Judges, and a temporary injunction was granted upon the authority of the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals which we have just reviewed, and affirmed. Appeal from that order was taken to this court. The facts are not materially different from those presented in the former case, and the reasons therein stated for the conclusion reached are controlling here, and need not be repeated.

The order of the District Court is

¶3

Affirmed.

¶4

Mr. Justice HOLMES, Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, and Mr. Justice CLARKE dissent.

/258/us/65 · .json · Public domain