Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/99297/united-states-vs-howard
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 15:21:27
Document Index: 27611199

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 851', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 20', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 3', '§ 7708', '§ 2']

United States Vs Howard - Citation 99297 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Howard - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/99297
Case Number 352 U.S. 212
.....to the "law of the state." rule 14.01 of the regulations of the florida game & fresh water fish commission prohibits the transportation of certain fresh fish out of the state, and § 372.83 of the florida statutes makes it a misdemeanor to violate any rule, regulation or order of the commission. held: rule 14.01 of the commission's regulations, as enforced by § 372.83 of the florida statutes, is a "law of the state" within the meaning of the federal act. pp. 352 u. s. 213 -219. (a) united states v. eaton, 144 u. s. 677 , distinguished. pp. 352 u. s. 215 -217. (b) by fla. stat. § 372.83, the florida legislature intended to and did make infraction of any commission regulation a violation of state law, punishable as a misdemeanor. pp. .....
United States v. Howard - 352 U.S. 212 (1957)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Howard, 352 U.S. 212 (1957)
Held: Rule 14.01 of the Commission's regulations, as enforced by § 372.83 of the Florida Statutes, is a "law of the State" within the meaning of the Federal Act. Pp. 352 U. S. 213 -219.
(a) United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677 , distinguished. Pp. 352 U. S. 215 -217.
(b) By Fla. Stat. § 372.83, the Florida Legislature intended to and did make infraction of any commission regulation a violation of state law, punishable as a misdemeanor. Pp. 352 U. S. 216 -217.
(c) The record does not show that the rules of the Florida Commission are of such a temporary nature and so unaccompanied by the procedural niceties of rule making as to require that Rule 14.01 be considered not the "law of the State" for the purposes of the Federal Act. Pp. 352 U. S. 217 -218.
(d) That Congress intended to extend the enforcement guarantees of the Black Bass Act to such regulations as those of the Florida Commission is the most reasonable interpretation of the Act, and it is supported by the legislative history of the 1947 amendment to the Act. Pp. 352 U. S. 218 -219.
A federal criminal information was filed by the United States against Ludenia Howard, trading as Stokes Fish Company, appellee, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, charging her with a violation of the Federal Black Bass Act of May 20, 1926, as amended, c. 346, 44 Stat. 576, 46 Stat. 845, 61 Stat. 517, 66 Stat. 736, 16 U.S.C. §§ 851Đ854. The Act provides:
Fla.Stat.Ann., 1943, § 372.021. Another statute makes it a misdemeanor to violate "any rule, regulation or order of the game and fresh water fish commission. . . ." Fla.Stat.1955, § 372.83. Rule 14.01 of the Commission's rules prohibits the transportation of certain fresh fish outside the State; it is this regulation that Ludenia Howard is accused of breaking. [ Footnote 1 ] Because the information was quashed for failure to state a federal crime, we assume the alleged acts of appellee
This Court has repeatedly ruled, in other circumstances, that orders of state administrative agencies are the law of the State. In Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Indiana R. Comm'n, 221 U. S. 400 , 221 U. S. 403 , the Court stated, citing Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210 , 211 U. S. 226 :
And in Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 249 U. S. 422 , 249 U. S. 424 , it was said that an order of the state public utilities commission,
A similar statement may be found in Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis S.W. R. Co., 249 U. S. 134 , 249 U. S. 141 .
It was suggested that the action of the court below is supported by United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677 . We believe the case is inapposite. It involved the regulation of manufacturers and dealers in oleomargarine under 24 Stat. 209. Section 18 of the Act provided a criminal penalty for the knowing or willful failure "to do, or cause to be done, any of the things required by law." Section 5 required manufacturers to keep certain records. A similar requirement was imposed upon wholesalers by a regulation made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue pursuant to § 20. The defendant in the Eaton case, a
Id. , at 144 U. S. 688 . The Court made particular mention of the fact that the Act expressly required manufacturers to keep certain books, but made no such requirement of wholesalers. Id. [ Footnote 2 ] In Singer v. United States, 323 U. S. 338 , 323 U. S. 345 , we said:
" United States v. Eaton turned on its special facts, as United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 , 220 U. S. 518 -519, emphasizes. It has not been construed to state a fixed principle that a regulation can never be a 'law' for purposes of criminal prosecutions. It may or may not be, depending on the structure of the particular statute."
See also Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211 , 152 U. S. 219 . Here, it is beyond question that the Florida Legislature, in Fla.Stat., § 372.83, intended to and did make infraction
Commission promulgation of orders is regulated by § 372.021 of 14 Fla.Stat.Ann., a legislative enactment. It provides that no regulation or amendment to a regulation is effective until 30 days after the filing of a certified copy of such provisions with the secretary of state. The statute also directs that any change in the type of regulation involved here is to be filed in the office of each county judge, and that changes must be published in each county in a newspaper of general circulation. [ Footnote 3 ] We are advised by the Government's brief that the Commission compiles its rules in a code book which is circulated without cost to all county judges, as is directed by statute, and also to principal sporting goods and license dealers. In fact, they seem to be available to anyone requesting them from the Commission. We are also told that it is the Commission's practice to conduct public hearings to give
The State of Florida prefers to entrust the regulation of its wildlife conservation program to a Game Commission. Such a preference is in accordance with the practice of 28 States that have vested full regulatory authority in commissions. Only 6 States reserve that full authority to their legislatures. Sport Fishing Institute Bulletin, No. 26, p. 60 (January 1954). Moreover, a document prepared by the Department of the Interior and submitted to us by the Government at our request shows that, even in 1926, the year the Black Bass Act was first passed, significant rulemaking power was entrusted to game commissions or commissioners in some 20 States. [ Footnote 4 ]
That the congressional purpose was to extend the enforcement guarantees of the Black Bass Act to these regulations is the most reasonable interpretation of the Act, and is an interpretation supported by the legislative history of the 1947 amendment to the Act. The amendment,
The Court also paid special note to the fact that, subsequent to the alleged acts of Eaton, but prior to its decision, Congress amended the Oleomargarine Act to expressly require the keeping of books by wholesalers. 144 U.S. at 144 U. S. 685 Đ686, 144 U. S. 688 . The Court noted this factor in Eaton when discussing the Eaton case in Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211 , 152 U. S. 220 .
See, e.g., Supplement to the Codes and General Laws of California 1925Đ1927, Act of May 23, 1925, § 3 (Act 2895), St.Cal.1925, p. 595, West's Ann.Fish & Game Code, § 7708; Laws of Maine, 1917, c. 219, § 2; New York Laws, 1912, c. 318.