Mulford v. Smith
Significance, Justice Roberts Reverses Himself, Swing Vote
Appellant
James H. Mulford
Appellee
Nat Smith
Appellant's Claim
That penalties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 for overproduction are unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
A. J. Little, L. E. Heath
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Omer W. Franklin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Felix Frankfurter, Charles Evans Hughes, Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts (writing for the Court), Harlan Fiske Stone
Justices Dissenting
Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds (Louis D. Brandeis did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
17 April 1939
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
Related Cases
- United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
- West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Sources
Lance Liebman "Swing Man on the Supreme Court." The New York Times, 8 October 1972.
Further Readings
- Badger, Anthony J. Prosperity Road: The New Deal, Tobacco, and North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
- Maidment, R. A. The Judicial Response to the New Deal: The U.S. Supreme Court and Economic Regulation, 1934-1936. New York, NY: Manchester University Press, 1991.
- Saloutos, Theodore. The American Farmer and the New Deal. Ames: University of Iowa Press, 1982.
Additional topics
- Myers v. United States - Significance, History Of Appointment And Removal Powers, A Former President Defends Presidential Powers, Three Strong Dissents
- Morehead v. New York - Significance, A Dissenting Opinion, Resolution And Reversal, Impact
- Mulford v. Smith - Significance
- Mulford v. Smith - Justice Roberts Reverses Himself
- Mulford v. Smith - Swing Vote
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1918 to 1940