TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kennington v. Palmer

Kennington Et Al. v. Palmer Et Al.

Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U.S. 100 (1921)
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 28, 1921
Docket
No. 367
Judges
White, Pitney, Brandeis, Day
Citations
255 U.S. 10041 S. Ct. 30465 L. Ed. 5281921 U.S. LEXIS 1797
Disposition
Reversed.
Syllabus
1.. Decided, as to the unconstitutionality of part of the Food Control Act, upon the authority of United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 81. 2. Equity will enjoin criminal prosecutions threatened under a void statute, the legal remedy being- inadequate.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. Bill to enjoin criminal prosecutions against dealers in wearing apparel under § 4 of the Food Control Act.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants, dealers in wearing apparehin the city of Jackson, Mississippi, filed their bill in the court below against the Attorney General and subordinates charged by him with administrative duties under § 4 of the Lever *101 Act to enjoin the enforcement against them of provisions of that section. Their right to relief was based upon averments as to the unconstitutionality of the assailed provisions of the section, not only, in substance, upon the contentions which we have this day considered and disposed of in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, ante, 81, but upon other grounds as well.

Without passing upon the question of constitutionality, the court dismissed the bill for the reason that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and the correctness of the decree of dismissal is the question now before us on direct appeal.

As it is no longer open to deny that the averments of unconstitutionality which were relied upon, if wel' founded, justified equitable relief under the bill, 1

.anc because the opinion in the Cohen Case has conclusively' settled that they were well founded, -it follows that the court below was wrong and its décree must be and it is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Reversed.

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.

1

Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332 ;

Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590 ;

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 ;

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251U. S. 146;

Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264 ;

Ft. Smith & Western R. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 11924: 11925: 31926: 11928: 11929: 11930: 21931: 11932: 11934: 11947: 119222026peak 1925 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sinclair v. State132 So. 581 (Miss. 1931) · Concurrence
  2. Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid297 F. 307 (N.D. Ohio 1924)
  3. White v. Federal Radio Commmission29 F.2d 113 (N.D. Ill. 1928)
  4. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. City of Charlottesville42 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1930)
  5. Toomer v. Witsell73 F. Supp. 371 (E.D.S.C. 1947)
  6. Kincaid v. United States35 F.2d 235 (W.D. La. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Toomer v. Witsell73 F. Supp. 371 (E.D.S.C. 1947)
  2. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934)
  3. City of Jackson v. McPherson138 So. 604 (Miss. 1932) · Dissent
  4. Sinclair v. State132 So. 581 (Miss. 1931) · Concurrence
  5. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. City of Charlottesville42 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1930)
  6. State v. Bevins230 N.W. 865 (Iowa 1930)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) 254
Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917) 170
Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U.S. 264 (1920) 156
Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590 (1917) 143
Fort Smith & Western R.R. v. Mills, 253 U.S. 206 (1920) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

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