Kennecott Copper Corp. v. United States, 381 U.S. 414 (1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. United States, 381 U.S. 414 (1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: West v. Village Of Morrisville (ca2, 1984-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" West v. Village Of Morrisville (2×)
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., 381 U.S. 413 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965) (dismissed as moot eight years after abstention ordered).
discussed Cited "see" West v. Village of Morrisville (2×)
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., 381 U.S. 413 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965) (dismissed as moot eight years after abstention ordered).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (3×)
D. Maryland · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Kennecott Copper Co., 231 F.Supp. 95, 99 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff’d per curiam, 381 U.S. 414 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965); United States v. Hughes Tool Co., 415 F.Supp. 637 at 642 (C.D.Cal.1976); Beatrice Foods Co., 3 Trade Reg.Rep. ¶ 20,944, p. 20,787 n.3 (FTC 1975); Straetz Tr 312-15; Sublett Tr 348; Epstein Tr 2829; Shaeffer Tr 3099-3100.
examined Cited "see" Roe v. Rampton (4×)
D. Utah · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 , 65 S.Ct. 152 , 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944) (decision requiring abstention), and Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 , 71 S. Ct. 508 , 95 L.Ed. 573 (1951) (decision on the merits.) In United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., 381 U.S. 413 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965), the case was dismissed as moot eight years after abstention was ordered.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donohoe Construction Co. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (2×)
D. Maryland · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., 381 U.S. 413 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965) (case dismissed as moot eight years after abstention order); Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. O’Connor, 340 U.S. 602 , 71 S.Ct. 508 , 95 L.Ed. 573 (1951) (six years between time Supreme Court ordered abstention and the Court’s ultimate decision on the merits.) For that reason, the federal courts should abstain from exercising their jurisdiction only in those situations where deferring to state adjudication is likely to avert real harm.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." DONOHOE C. CO., INC. v. Maryland-National CP & P. Com'n (2×)
D. Maryland · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., 381 U.S. 413 , 85 S.Ct. 1575 , 14 L.Ed.2d 692 (1965) (case dismissed as moot eight years after abstention order); Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 , 71 S.Ct. 508 , 95 L.Ed. 573 (1951) (six years between time Supreme Court ordered abstention and the Court's ultimate decision on the merits.) For that reason, the federal courts should abstain from exercising their jurisdiction only in those situations where deferring to state adjudication is likely to avert real harm.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kennecott Copper Corp.
v.
United States
995.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1965.
381 U.S. 414
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.
Goldberg.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

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.