Violation Of Housing And Rent Act Of 1947

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Benson Hotel Corp. v. Woods
  168 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1948-06-11 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the interlocutory judgment granting a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellate court's role is to review the trial court's discretion, not to decide the merits of the case.
• Tanimura v. United States
  195 F.2d 329· 9th Cir.· 1952-03-06 ·cited 18×
  A judgment need not be reversed for denying a jury trial if the outcome could not have been more favorable to the appellant.
• United States v. Ziomek & 10 other cases
  191 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1951-10-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a court may award both statutory damages and restitution in an action brought under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, and that the award of damages is not discretionary.
• Mahanor v. United States
  192 F.2d 873· 1st Cir.· 1951-12-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that both husband and wife were liable for rent overcharges, and restitution was appropriate even for violations under an expired act.
• Emery v. United States
  186 F.2d 900· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Housing Expediter had statutory authority to collect rent overcharges, and attorneys appointed by the Expediter had proper authority to prosecute the suit, even if that authority was granted retroactively.
• United States v. Gianoulis
  183 F.2d 378· 3d Cir.· 1950-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The 1949 amendment to the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, allowing the United States to sue for treble damages for rent overcharges, was intended to be retroactive.
• Greider v. Woods
  177 F.2d 1016· 10th Cir.· 1949-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Expediter, as an agency of the United States, can bring actions in federal court under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 without a jurisdictional minimum amount, and that landlords cannot use a tenant's breach of lease covenants as a defense against restitu
• Woods v. Hillcrest Terrace Corp.
  170 F.2d 980· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint without allowing evidence or amendment, and in refusing a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Grubl
  186 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the rent overcharges inconsequential and in denying relief, as such overcharges violate the purpose of rent control laws.
• Thomas v. United States
  200 F.2d 686· 1st Cir.· 1952-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a settlement agreement and subsequent judgment entered pursuant to it, obtained by a landlord from a tenant under duress and contrary to public policy, was a legal nullity and did not bar the United States from seeking restitution and statutory damages for ren
• Leitner v. United States
  184 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1950-09-18 ·cited 4×
  Occupancy of housing provided as compensation for services is considered 'rented' for purposes of decontrol under the Housing and Rent Act.
• Kweskin v. Finkelstein
  232 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the landlord's demand for $1,000 as a condition to approving a new tenant who would purchase furniture constituted a violation of the Housing and Rent Act, entitling the tenant to treble damages.
• Forde v. United States
  189 F.2d 727· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-19 ·cited 2×
  A landlord cannot evade rent control by furnishing an apartment and charging a separate rate for furniture without first obtaining administrative approval for a rent increase.
• Toobert v. Woods
  174 F.2d 861· 9th Cir.· 1949-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant was not a 'landlord' under the rent regulations because he did not receive rent directly from the tenants, but rather received payments under a valid oral contract of sale and a subsequent oral lease from an intermediary.
• Mrs. W. K. Nicholson v. United States
  222 F.2d 208· 6th Cir.· 1955-04-27
  The court held that a tenant's willingness to pay an overcharge is not a defense to a violation of the Housing and Rent Act, and the expiration of the statute does not negate past violations.
• Kolar v. Woods
  189 F.2d 736· 5th Cir.· 1951-06-15
  The court held that the defendants violated rent control acts by forcing a tenant to pay more than the maximum legal rent through a "tie-in" stock purchase scheme.