TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fleming v. Van Der Loo

FLEMING, Temporary Controls Adm'r v. VAN DER LOO

Fleming v. Van Der Loo, 160 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 12, 1947
Docket
No. 9324
Citations
160 F.2d 90582 U.S. App. D.C. 4001947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2705

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The' Price Administrator, who was appellant’s predecessor as a party to this case, brought a civil action in the District Court praying for an injunction and for damages. Trial was had. On December 11, 1945, a memorandum opinion was filed by the District Court in which the Court stated, inter alia: “Damages denied. Petition for injunction granted.” Thereafter on January 3, 1946, a final decree was entered which, after reciting that the parties had agreed that the memorandum opinion should serve as findings of fact and conclusions'of law, enjoined appellee from selling garments above ceiling prices, but the decree contained no provision with respect to the claim for damages. On March 25, 1946, the Price Administrator appealed “from that portion of the judgment of this Court which denied the Administrator relief under Section 205(e) [i. e., damages] of. the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e), entered on the. 3rd day of January 1946, in favor of Jo Van Der Loo against Paul A. Porter’s predecessor as Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, Chester Bowles.” ’■

There has been no judgment entered upon the claim for damages. Cf. Rule •54, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This appeal consequently is premature and must be dismissed. The case will be remanded to the District Court for the entry of judgment on the claim for damages. St. Louis Amusement Company v. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400 ; In re D’Arcy, 3 Cir., 142 F.2d 313 .

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1954: 11993: 219542026peak 1993 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miller v. Bittner985 F.2d 935 (8th Cir. 1993)
  2. Massy v. United States214 F.2d 935 (8th Cir. 1954)
  3. Miller v. Bittner985 F.2d 935 (1st Cir. 1993)

Most recent

  1. Miller v. Bittner985 F.2d 935 (1st Cir. 1993)
  2. Miller v. Bittner985 F.2d 935 (8th Cir. 1993)
  3. Massy v. United States214 F.2d 935 (8th Cir. 1954)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re D'Arcy, 142 F.2d 313 (3d Cir. 1944) 22
St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 156 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1946) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list