U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1947

United States v. Hirahara

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 31, 1947

164 F.2d 157; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 1875 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ray J. O’Brien, U. S. Atty., and Maurice Sapienza, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Honolulu, T. H., and Reynold Colvin, Asst. U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Clarence Y. Shimamura, of Honolulu, T. H., for appellee Hirahara., Hyman M. Greenstein, of Honolulu, T. H., for appellee Golding.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Rich Company (9th Cir. 1971)
United States ex rel. Acme Granite & Tile Co. v. F. D. Rich Co. (9th Cir. 1970)
Acheson v. Furusho (9th Cir. 1954)
Bowles v. Wilke (7th Cir. 1949)
Northwestern Lumber & Shingle Co. v. United States (10th Cir. 1948)
Woods v. Rose (9th Cir. 1948)
Fleming v. Findlay (9th Cir. 1947)

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 case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing an action brought under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, as, amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e), to recover treble damages for violation of maximum price regulations on lumber.

The situation in this case is identical with that in Porter v. Koike, No. 11,575, 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 155. There, as here, the substitution of the United States as party plaintiff and a summary reversal are sought. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Porter v. Koike the motion for substitution of the United States as party plaintiff is granted and the order of dismissal, 69 F.Supp. 441, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

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