U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1948

Rosenfeld v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 5, 1948

167 F.2d 222; 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2426 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

W. T. McGowan, Jr., and C. T. McDonald, both of Florence, S. C., for appellant., Nathan Siegel, Special Litigation Attorney, Office of Housing Expediter of New York City (Ed Dupree, General Counsel, and Hugo V. Prucha, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Housing Expediter, both of Washington, D. C., and Ben Scott Whaley, U. S. Atty. of Charleston, on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

People of Puerto Rico v. Susoni (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1959)
Pueblo v. Susoni (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1959)
Dorsey K. Offutt v. United States of a America (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Offutt v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1953)
Woods v. Schwartz (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt of *223court in disobeying an injunction which forbade violation of OPA rent regulations, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00, or imprisonment for a period of six months. We think that the facts in evidence amply sustain the action of the District Judge in holding appellant guilty of contempt. We do not think, however, that the facts justify the penalty imposed. The violation of the rent regulation was of minor character, and there is no showing of a defiant attitude on the part of appellant or that he was a hardened offender. We think that he will be sufficiently punished by a fine of $500.00, or imprisonment for three months, and understand that we have power to make such modification, when we conclude that the punishment imposed was not justified by the facts. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 305, 67 S.Ct. 677. The order appealed from will be modified accordingly. As so modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.