Kennecott Copper Corp. v. United States
Opinion of the Court
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 .
Dissent
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.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
381 U.S. 414 (1965)
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 995.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 1, 1965. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
- United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- Consol. Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla.
- Mississippi River Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- Fruehauf Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.
Most recent
- Consol. Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla.
- Fruehauf Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.
- United States v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
- United States v. Blue Bell, Inc.
- Mississippi River Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.