United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 302 (1943)
Johnson (defendant) owned residential property that he leased to “One Roach” (plaintiff), a fictitious name of the individual tenant. One Roach brought suit against Johnson, alleging that the charged rent was in excess of the maximum amount fixed by regulation pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (the Act). The Act delegated power to a “price administrator” to promulgate regulations for maximum rent that could be collected in specific geographic areas. Johnson filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the Act was unconstitutional, because it improperly delegated legislative power to the administrator. The United States intervened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 401 in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but prior to entry of the final order, the government moved to reopen the case, alleging collusion and the lack of a real case or controversy. The motion contained the affidavit of the plaintiff, admitting the case was brought under a fictitious name as a “friendly suit” at the request of Johnson, and that the plaintiff had not read the complaint and was not aware of the amount of damages claimed. The plaintiff was assured he would incur no expenses, and he did not hire, pay, or even meet plaintiff’s attorney of record. Johnson’s counter-affidavit did not dispute the allegations and further admitted that Johnson hired the attorney for the plaintiff and assured the plaintiff that he would not have to appear for trial. The district court denied the motion, and the government appealed on the constitutionality of the Act and on the refusal to reopen and dismiss the case as collusive.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.