ENGLISH v. CUNNINGHAM
361 U.S. 905

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

ENGLISH v. CUNNINGHAM , 361 U.S. 905 (1959)

361 U.S. 905 361 U.S. 897

John F. ENGLISH et al., Petitioners,
v.
John CUNNINGHAM et al.
No. 415.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 16, 1959

As Amended Dec. 7, 1959.

Messrs. Edward Bennett Williams, David Previant, Harold Ungar and Raymond W. Bergan, for petitioners.

Mr. Godfrey P. Schmidt, for respondents (except Cunningham).

Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, for the Board of Monitors.

Mr. Raymond R. Dickey, for Distinti and others.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER has filed the following memorandum:

For me, the reasons that govern the normal practice of the Court is not recording votes on dispositions of petitions for certiorari are controlling against departures from that practice. On appropriate occasions, however, I deem

Page 361 U.S. 905 , 906

it desirable to indicate the issues presented by such a petition and the legal significance of its denial. Here, this will become manifest from the following memorandum in which on August 4, 1959, 19, as a Circuit Justice, I denied the application for a stay of the judgment, review of which is sought in this petition for certiorari:

    'This is an application for a stay of the decree entered on July 9, 1959, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, hereafter called the Teamsters, and certain of their officers, who, together with the Teamsters, will be called defendants. The litigation was initiated by thirteen members of locals of the Teamsters (one of whom has dissociated himself from the rest ), to be called plaintiffs. This application is in effect a review of the refusal of the Court of Appeals to grant such a stay.
    'The basis of the application is to enable defendants to file a petition for certiorari to review the decree of the Court of Appeals, the validity of which they propose to challenge and the enforcement of which, pending potential review and potential reversal here, will, they claim, cause them irreparable damage. Since the contemplated petition for certiorari cannot be considered prior to the reconvening of this Court on October 5, 1959, the threshold question on this application is whether the issues which defendants plan to bring before the Court are not of such a legal nature that they may fairly be deemed so lacking in substantiality as to preclude a reasonable likelihood of satisfying the considerations governing review on certiorari, as guided by Rule 19, 28 U.S.C.A., and the practice of the Court. Informed by the illuminating opinion of Judge Fahy, 106 U.S.A.pp.D.C. 70, 92, 269 F.2d 517, 539, and having had the advantage to hear elucidation of the issues by counsel for the parties and by the Chairman of the Board of Monitors appointed [361 U.S. 905 , 907]


    Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.