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
37 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 430 F. Supp. 729 (D. Md. 1976)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
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
1965 U.S. LEXIS 2423
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.