CUDAHY BROS. CO.
v.
BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complainant should be given an opportunity to present evidence supporting its price adjustment claims.
Complainant filed applications for price adjustment of beef sold to the armed forces. The Administrator denied these applications and subsequent prote…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
MAGRUDER, Judge.
Complainant, Cudahy Brothers Co., on various dates between December 9, 1942 and May 15, 1943 filed with the Price Administrator twenty applications for adjustment of maximum prices of carcass beef and frozen boneless beef sold to the armed forces under Government contracts. The applications were made pursuant to the Administrator’s Supplementary Order No. 9 (7 F.R. 5444) and to Procedural Regulation No. 6 (7 F.R. 5087, 5664). Orders denying the applications were duly protested by complainant. These protests were denied by the Administrator in an order issued March 6, 1944, after which the present complaint was filed.
The issues presented are similar to those in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, No. 96, Em.App., 148 F. 2d 546. Extended discussion of the case is unnecessary. Complainant should be given an opportunity to introduce evidence in support of its claims for adjustment along the line indicated in our opinion in No. 96.
A judgment will be entered setting aside the order of March 6, 1944 denying the protest and the case is remanded to the Administrator for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, No. 96.