Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Thomas Paper Stock Co. Et Al. v. Porter, Price Administrator

• 1945 • 328 U.S. 50 • Stone Court
In the 1945 case of Thomas Paper Stock Co. et al. v. Porter, Price Administrator, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to price control during World War II under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (EPCA). The appellants were paper stock dealers who challenged a regulation issued by the Office of Price Administration that set maximum prices for waste paper materials. They argued that this violated their rights as it was not based on any factual findings and did not provide them...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Stone Court
Term: 1945
Docket: 578
328 U.S. 50
66 S. Ct. 884
90 L. Ed. 1078
1946 U.S. LEXIS 2498
Argued: Feb 25, 1946

Thomas Paper Stock Co. Et Al. v. Porter, Price Administrator

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1945 case of Thomas Paper Stock Co. et al. v. Porter, Price Administrator, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to price control during World War II under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (EPCA). The appellants were paper stock dealers who challenged a regulation issued by the Office of Price Administration that set maximum prices for waste paper materials. They argued that this violated their rights as it was not based on any factual findings and did not provide them an opportunity for a fair hearing before its issuance. The court ruled in favor of Porter, upholding the validity of EPCA and stating that Congress had delegated sufficient legislative power to administrative agencies like OPA to regulate wartime economy effectively without violating constitutional principles or procedural due process rights. It held that while individuals have a right to be heard before being deprived of property interests, such hearings are not always necessary prior to rulemaking if there is an urgent public interest at stake.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas Paper Stock Co. et al. v. Porter, Price Administrator, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold price regulations imposed by the Office of Price Administration (OPA) under the Emergency Price Control Act was incorrect and overstepped constitutional boundaries. The dissenting justices believed that Congress had delegated too much legislative power to an administrative agency without providing adequate standards or guidelines for its exercise, thus violating principles of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. They also expressed concerns about due process rights being violated as a result of these broad regulatory powers given to OPA and questioned whether such extensive control over private business activities could be justified even during times of war or national emergency.

Opinion written by Justice FFrankfurter
Decided: Apr 22, 1946
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms