Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/18/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/18/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Haley, 371 U.S. 18 (1962)
United States v. Haley
No. 148
Decided October 15, 1962
371 U.S. 18
Syllabus
1. This Court's decision per curiam, 358 U. S. 644, reversing the judgment below on the Government's earlier direct appeal in this case, necessarily established that (1) this Court had jurisdiction over that appeal, (2) the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 embraced the conduct of appellee complained of, (3) the Act was constitutional as applied in the premises, and (4) the Government was entitled to the relief sought, subject only to the District Court's resolution of appellee's procedural defense to the effect that the Government had failed to comply with conditions requisite to the effective establishment of a wheat acreage allotment for appellee. Pp. 371 U. S. 19-20.
2. In No. 139, Misc., the Government's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and its petition for writ of mandamus are granted, but the formal writ will not be issued if the District Court promptly takes steps (1) to set aside its order of February 26, 1962, denying the Government's motion for judgment, (2) to proceed to resolve Haley's procedural defense, (3) if such defense is found to be insufficient, to enter final judgment in favor of the United States, and (4) if such defense is found sufficient, to enter judgment accordingly. P. 371 U. S. 20.
3. In view of the disposition of No. 139, Misc., it is not necessary to consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over the Government's appeal in No. 148, and that appeal is dismissed. P. 371 U. S. 20.
