Bowles

Bowles v. Luster

Good Law
153 F.2d 382·1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 31, 1946No. 11074California1,073 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orr, J.

We will refer to the appellant herein as the “Administrator” and to the appellees as the “Lusters”.

The Lusters have been engaged in the wholesale furniture business in Los An-geles, -Cal., since 1942. The Administrator brought an action in the District Court for the Southern District of California alleging that the Lusters had violated the General Maximum Price Regulation, 1 issued by the Administrator under the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, 2 (a) by failing to keep the records required by section 12, (b) by failing to compute their maximum prices as required by section 2 of the regulation, and (c) by failing to make the reports required by section 3(a) of the regulation. An injunction was asked forbidding a continuance of the alleged violation.

*383 The court found that the Lusters had violated the regulations by failing to prepare and keep the records required, and by failing to determine the maximum prices for the commodities sold by them in accordance with the rules and formulas prescribed by the regulation, 3 and entered judgment permanently enjoining the Lus-ters “from selling, delivering, transferring or offering to sell, deliver or transfer commodities at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.