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/434/425/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/425/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 434 U.S. 425 (1978)
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.
No. 76-156
Decided January 23, 1978
434 U.S. 425
Syllabus
Petitioner's motion for clarification of this Court's judgment ordering that
"this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court,"
is denied. While such motion may be properly treated as a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus against the District Court (to which the Court of Appeals, in turn, had remanded the case) to execute this Court's judgment, it does not appear that service of the motion was made on the judge or judges to whom the writ is sought to be directed as required by this Court's Rule 31, and, in any event, to grant the motion for clarification would serve no useful purpose, since the judgment in question is typically a routine order directing that this Court's decision be carried into effect. If petitioner believes the District Court is failing to carry out the judgment of this Court, its remedy is by motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to Rule 31.
