YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL.
v.
SAWYER; AND SAWYER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, V. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL.
Per Curiam:
Certiorari granted. Mr. Justice Burton, with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurred, voted to deny cer-tiorari, and filed a memorandum expressing their reasons therefor. The cases are assigned for argument on Monday, May 12, next.
The order of the District Court entered April 30, 1952, is hereby stayed pending disposition of these cases by this Court. It is further ordered, as a provision of this stay, that Charles S. Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce (respondent in No. 744 and petitioner in No. 745), take no action to change any term or condition of employment while this stay is in effect unless such change is mutually agreed upon by the steel companies (petitioners in No. 744 and respondents in No. 745) and the bargaining representatives of the employees.
Memorandum by
Mr. Justice Burton,
with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurred:
The first question before this Court is that presented by the petitions for a writ of certiorari by-passing the Court of Appeals. The constitutional issue which is the subject of the appeal deserves for its solution all of the wisdom that our judicial process makes available. The need for soundness in the result outweighs the need for speed in reaching it. The Nation is entitled to the substantial value inherent in an intermediate consideration of the issue by the Court of Appeals. Little time will be lost and none will be wasted in seeking it. The time taken will be available also for constructive consideration by the parties of their own positions and responsibilities.
Accordingly, I would deny the petitions for certiorari and thus allow the case to be heard by the Court of Appeals. Such action would eliminate the consideration here of the terms of the stay of the order of the District Court heretofore issued by the Court of Appeals.
However, cer-tiorari being granted here, I join in all particulars in the order of this Court, now issued, staying that of the District Court. John C. Gall and John J. Wilson for the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al.; Luther Day, Edmund L. Jones, Howard Boyd, John C. Gall and T.
F. Patton for the Republic Steel Corp.; Charles H. Tuttle and Joseph P. Tumulty, Jr. for the Armco Steel Corp. et al.; Bruce Bromley and E. Fontaine Broun for the Bethlehem Steel Co. et al.; John C. Bane, Jr., H. Parker Sharp and Sturgis Warner for the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.; John W. Davis, Theodore Kiendl, John Lord O’Brian, Roger M. Blough, Porter R. Chandler and Howard C. Westwood for the United States Steel Co.; and Randolph W. Childs, Edgar S. McKaig and James Craig Peacock for E.
J. Lavino & Co., petitioners in No. 744 and respondents in No.
745. Solicitor General Perlman for Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce. Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris filed a brief for the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., as amicus curiae, with regard to the issuance of a stay.
Reported below: 90 U. S. App. D. C. -, 197 F. 2d 582.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1952)…day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court’s injunction. 90 U. S. App. D. C. -, 197 F. 2d 582. Deeming it best that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May 12. 343 U. S. 937. Two crucial issues have developed: First. Should final determination of the constitutional validity of the President’s order be made in this case which has proceeded no further than the preliminary injunction stage? Second. If so, is the seizure o…
-
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986)…of full consideration — were meritless. See also Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 360 U. S. 246, 247, n. 1 (1959) (memorandum of Bhennan, J.) (finding only one instance of such a dissent — the extraordinary case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 937 (1952), where certiorari was granted prior to the Court of Appeals’ judgment). The concurrence filed by The Chief Justice today, see ante, p. 187, to justify his dissent from the grant of certiorari in this case shows why. As Justice BRENNAN persuas…
-
Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1957)…nse had been unreasonably hampered at the trial, and that the statute under which he was sentenced to death was unconstitutional. Certiorari was denied on March 31, 1952. Chessman v. California, 343 U. S. 915. Rehearing was denied on April 28, 1952. 343 U. S. 937. On May 19, 1952, Chessman filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court denied the petition without hearing on June 9, 1952. The United States Court of Ap…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sawyer v. United States Steel Co., 197 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1952)