KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 381 U.S. 414 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 381 U.S. 414 (1965)

381 U.S. 414

KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK. No. 995.
Decided June 1, 1965.

231 F. Supp. 95, affirmed.

Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerome S. Wagshal and Donald L. Hardison for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 and United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U.S. 271.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting.

We would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. In so voting, we indicate no opinion on the merits. Under the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 29 (1964 ed.), this is appellant's first and only appeal. So long as this statute remains on the books and Congress provides no intermediate review, see United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 175, it is our view that the policy of the Act is, in general, best served by plenary rather than summary dispositions of such appeals. Ibid. Of course, if the question presented by an appeal is plainly insubstantial or directly governed by a controlling decision of this Court, summary disposition would still be appropriate. Since we do not believe that this can be said of this case, we would give plenary consideration to this appeal.

Page 381 U.S. 414, 415




U.S. Supreme Court

KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 381 U.S. 414 (1965)

381 U.S. 414

KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK. No. 995.
Decided June 1, 1965.

231 F. Supp. 95, affirmed.

Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerome S. Wagshal and Donald L. Hardison for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 and United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U.S. 271.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting.

We would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. In so voting, we indicate no opinion on the merits. Under the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 29 (1964 ed.), this is appellant's first and only appeal. So long as this statute remains on the books and Congress provides no intermediate review, see United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 175, it is our view that the policy of the Act is, in general, best served by plenary rather than summary dispositions of such appeals. Ibid. Of course, if the question presented by an appeal is plainly insubstantial or directly governed by a controlling decision of this Court, summary disposition would still be appropriate. Since we do not believe that this can be said of this case, we would give plenary consideration to this appeal.

Page 381 U.S. 414, 415

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.