Document: 409 U.S. 151 93 S.Ct. 408 34 L.Ed.2d 375 TIDEWATER OIL CO., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES and Phillips Petroleum Company. No. 71-366. Argued Oct. 11, 1972. Decided Dec. 6, Syllabus The Expediting Act, providing that in a civil antitrust action brought by the United States federal district court an appeal from court's final judgment will lie only to this Court, lodged exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such actions Court thus bars courts of appeals asserting interlocutory orders covered 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), as well other specified 1292(a). legislative history those provisions contains no indication congressional intent impair original exclusivity Court's under Act. Pp. 154—174. Affirmed. Moses Lasky, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondents, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 On July 13, 1966, filed suit against Co. (Phillips) petitioner Tidewater Oil (Tidewater). complaint alleged Phillips' acquisition certain assets operations violated 7 Clayton 38 Stat. 731, amended, 15 18. District denied States' motion temporary restraining order prevent consummation acquisition,1 its subsequent preliminary injunction require either rescission or maintenance going-concern value transferred operations. 2 Petitioner continued party during some five years pretrial discovery preparation.2 Then April 1971, following Government's announcement it was ready trial, moved be dismissed party.3 motion, but found involved 'a controlling question law which there is substantial ground difference immediate (the) may materially advance ultimate termination litigation.' It therefore certified 'its denying defendant's dismiss Section 1292(b) Title Code.' As required statute, then applied Appeals Ninth Circuit prosecute appeal. That court, however, application relying solely on previous decision v. FMC Corp., 321 F.2d 534 (1963). There attempt made Government case. Notwithstanding 1292(a)(1) provides right granting injunctions, held lacked case because Act 1903, 32 823, 29, '(i)n every any (the Antitrust) Acts, wherein complainant, Supreme Court.' In case, then, extended prior ruling within 1292(b). Because raises important conflict among circuits subsequently developed question,4 we granted certiorari.5 For reasons follow, affirm Appeals. 3 * To determine relevance cases, necessary first consider purpose half-century experience with section context preceded enactment 1958.6 4 effort 'expedite (certain) litigation great general importance,' 36 Cong.Rec. 1679 (remarks Sen. Fairbanks),7 Congress enacted 19038 withdraw all intermediate cases. At time passage recently established circuit appeals9 had Evarts not 'final decision'10 also 'an decree' continuing appointing receiver 'in cause decree taken . appeals.'11 Hence, lodging court' necessarily eliminated interlocutory, final, decrees 5 initially determined speed review channeling cases directly avoid delay inherent piecemeal conditioning upon presence judgment.'12 But mere disposition Congress' concern; result might have been achieved simply establishing procedures expeditious handling appeals. facilitating 'of class deemed particularly important.'13 importance uniform interpretation law,14 still infancy understandable chose establish procedure were thought generally involve issues wide importance.15 6 During 25 amended provision governing four separate occasions—in 1906,16 1911,17 1925,18 1928.19 can argued face very these amendments once again available language each successive amendment, where relevant, perpetuated state affairs.20 But, while clear meaning statutory ignored, 'words are inexact tools at best,' Harrison Northern Trust Co., 317 476, 479, 63 361, 363, 87 L.Ed. 407 (1943), hence essential place words statute their proper resort history. Nowhere better illustrated than find inconceivable Congress, having purposefully withdrawn would reestablish same cases—but orders—just three later 1906, without making reference purpose. Yet mention 1906 amendment provision21—or, matter, insofr they relevant;22 rather, wholly unrelated apparent relevant materials.23 light this, impossible ascribe through provision. This clearly view seven members unanimous California Cooperative Canneries, 279 553, 49 423, 73 838 (1929). There, rejecting argument lay intervene stated:24 8 '(t)he Act) so suits equity Anti-Trust complainant' should direct trial court. Thus, limited disposed matters .; precluded possibility (this appeals) decree.' Id., 558, S.Ct., 425 (emphasis added). 9 And decade half later, Allen Calculators National Cash Register 322 137, 142, 64 905, 908, 88 1188 (1944), reiterated 'that vested Courts decrees.' true reviewable way extraordinary writs All Writs 1651(a), writ must 'sole lies' Alkali Export Assn. States, 325 196, 201—203, 65 1120, 1124—1125, 89 1554 (1945); De Beers Consolidated Mines 212, 217, 1130, 1132, 1566 (1945).25 10 wording altered 1948 revision Judicial Code.26 after minor changes here relevant27—was present 1292(a)(1), allows '(i)nterlocutory granting, continuing, modifying, refusing dissolving injunctions .'28 appealed 'except (Emphasis added.) clause susceptible two plausible constructions yield opposite results subject A barring 1292(a)(1)—or seem. when entered since judgment,' predicate Therefore, construed directed availability not, face, bar However, function Revisers Code consolidation codification.29 Consequently, well-established principle 'no change presumed unless expressed.' Fource Glass Transmirra Products 353 222, 228, 77 787, 791, 786 (1957). We expression here. contrary, Revisers' Notes fail reveal intention expand scope pre-existing appeals; new 1292 described merely number previously code including provision—'with phraseology effect consolidation.'30 11 sum, our examination evolution 1292(a)(1)—the descendant contained Act—has convinced us least up 1958, impaired usually questions construction, issue totally free doubt.31 Yet, last analysis, whatever ambiguity exist lengthy relative primarily absence consideration emphasizes extent has long viewed peculiarly distinct matter. Cf. U.S., 202—203, 1124—1125. Certainly, conclusion finds support decisions consistently interpreted exclusive.32 II 12 With background, becomes what effect, if any, 1958 theretofore part: 13 'When judge, otherwise appealable section, shall involves litigation, he writing order. thereupon, discretion, permit order, ten days entry ..' 14 outset contends between suggests 'civil action' read all-inclusive phrase covers, inter alia, time, points out concerned orders, deals judgments. concludes discretionary none existed, statutes complete harmony one another. Such facile could contention invoked cases—were fact that, already seen, does apply judgment' limits judgment.' Likewise, hardly accept petitioner's suggestion wrote clean slate insofar concerned. Nor do 'sharp break traditional policy' availablity dissent. created appeal; group orders—not 1292(a) law' 'may litigation.'33 short, consistent construction accorded 1292(b)34 cannot ignored determining impact cf. Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n, 393 186, 191 194, 354, 357—359, 21 334 (1968). Acceptance conclude intended revise policies underlying time—that departure purposes avoiding limiting unable discern intention. 16 associated Act.35 Reference, sure, statements36 refer private treble damages actions.37 fact, rather indicating strongly essentially contrary conclusion: subsection 'not under' 1292(a), 1291. instance, explaining proposed Senate Report states:38 17 'The bill growing awareness need expedition pending before courts. Many Federal judge entertain motions early stage proceedings which, determined, plaintiff, States. motions, plaintiff's favor, end therefore, existing law, appealable.' 18 supportive position, yet throughout materials focus similarly remains judgment.39 19 Petitioner's further weakened acceptance position yield. matter types orders—in particular, injunctions. Those (a), discretion Greater obviously attached (a) (b).40 Nevertheless, except provided 1292(a)(1).41 notes, effectively turn head.42 Consistent evident thrust statute's history, much more sensible judgments final.43 20 foundation panacea burdens imposed Both various individual Members occasion commented '(w)hatever wisdom proven unsatisfactory,' '(d)irect burden deprive valuable assistance Appeals.' Singer Mfg. 374 174, 175 n. 1, 83 1773, 1774, 823 (1963); see Ford Motor 405 562, 595 5, 92 1142, 1160, 31 492 (1972) (Burger, C.J., concurring part dissenting part); Borden 370 460, 477 82 1309, 1318, 627 (1962) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown Shoe 294, 355, 1502, 1541, 510 (Clark, concurring); id., 364—365, 1546—1547 part). Further, size docket, 'seldom expedition' normally examine entire record resolve however unsubstantial. 1541 364, 1546 supra, n., 1318. dissenting). Our today retreat remarks. remain circumstances fails hasten substantially unjustfiably inadequately sifted records Uniformity administration laws continues consideration. uniformity adequately ensured certiorari involving importance—together '(l)imited expediting 1160 part), factor. simple legal most (Government) longer novel unsettled make them especially appropriate initial compared variety areas law,' despite criticisms, personal views are, course, basis disregarding bound recognize plain unaltered event, failed convince permitting provide meaningful solution—if solution all—to problems place, reduce entrance judgment. Court; open appeal,44 doubtless raise law.' Also, added problem applications By definition, and, questionable, decide whether grant certiorari, particular occasions,45 deny mean allowing proceed erroneous basis. Given potential waste judicial resources—those court—associated choice, neither considered attractive. Finally, emphasizing screening focused complex factual common relates party, presented often threshold procedural requiring extensive analysis record.46 respect performed far less significance of, say, market, competition, agreement. latter properly decided full development evidence, doubtful best aid dealing review.47 22 even courts—the express 1292(b)48—would advanced contention. Permitting anomalous situation: judgment, An must, normal reviews likelihood small. Here, advisory relitigation Court.49 net work appeals,50 assurance ultimately saving time. III 23 did nature recognized hold unimpaired. Despite interest restructuring willing nor able adopt ungainly measure offered 24 WHITE joins reflecting merits 26 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 27 I agree STEWART barred disagree intimations both majority overwork routed here.1 'overwork' myth. total increased 1063 1939 Term 3643 1971 Term. increase largely forma pauperis 117 being 1930 note probable few signed opinions (which cases) totaled 137 six per curiams2 143 opinions, 129 curiams3 149 opinions. So terms petitions noted set load 33 ago. 29 processing increased. important; many ways do. selection across broad spectrum heart process. Once mandatory backlog piled high. 1925 Act4 changed leaving seem public interest. control docket left minority, votes nine petition. sifting respects think, interesting functions. Across screen come worries concerns American people—high low concrete, tangible form. Most already; seldom third fourth granted. national standards federal-state important, control, uniform; equally supreme allowed experiment approaches solutions. 30 Neither taking device reducing performance duties. anything, underworked, overworked. spent fascinating task reading jurisdictional statements. put down oral years. §§ 28, contribute caseload. 1967 argued, others summarily. 1968 eight, argued. 1969 four; 1970 reached us, argued.5 If surfeited, my Circuit—the Ninth—it uncommon write 50 term. 15-month current. average close Justice; occasionally anyone 18; backlog. Separate opinions—including dissents multiple. Term, overall 328. concurrences, dissents, Justice. work; done vast leisure presently have. small fractions load. represent large economy, consumers, free-enterprise system. expressed Sherman Act,6 Act,7 Robinson-Patman Act,8 Celler-Kefauver Act9 policy keep avenues business open, monopolies, save country cartel system product gargantuan growth. 35 course alone Act10 bring While join STEWART's dissent, expresses me inaccurate account vastly underworked. One interested discover Hugo Black 135 written STEWART, whom REHNQUIST concurs, DOUGLAS concurs part, 37 section,' appropriately certify involved, hear terms, category applies actions. prohibit former judgments, orders. inconsistency requires rejection them—rejection, basic construction. Seventh Fisons Ltd. 458 1241, 1245 (1972), 'the (can) given other.' Moreover, 1903 motivated expedited. Shenandoah Valley Broadcasting ASCAP, 39, 40, 84 8, 9, (1963).1 So, too, motivation behind 55 contemporary useful means litigation. Although authorizes rule appeals, advancing litigation.2 animated precisely objectives warranted circumstances, together supplementing another, antagonistic. indicates primary benefit expected occur protracted 'big' litigation.3 served seems wanted exclude like beneficent said so.4 39 originally heard panel judges certification Attorney General. now three. ensure receive presentation Court.5 criticized routes stated (1963): 40 'Whatever unsatisfactory. Direct 41 See Interlocutory reach shown above, precludes, desirable issues. 42 ban derived (1). expressly excludes cases; nothing contradicts exclusion, likewise allow said, injunction; head, non-Expediting gives priority injunctive right. 43 several answers argument. outset, major premise—that cases—is valid. question, Circuits divided, First jurisdiction,6 Third upholding appealability.7 never faced resolved conflict. 44 follow similar jurisdiction. arguably creates exception jurisdiction, language, reason enough treat differently. Beyond dramatically different thoroughly reviewed Cities Service 410 662 (CA1 1969), Ingersoll-Rand 320 509 (CA3 1963), today, ante, 155—163, discussed detail Suffice say version 1891, went succeeding years, relationship unclear. F.2d, 666—669. finally codified form 1948, although, above-mentioned demonstrates, codification clearer. hand, entirely representing sharp noninjunctive doubt about Act; conferred Court—such years—is surely expressing tool 45 point 'turn head,' certainly arguable nonappealability. if, appealable,' 1292(b)'s apply. 46 validity mean, bearing 47 remove According argument, although speaks understood include since, passed, From 424, (1929), 305 1512, goes, indicated exercise regardless order; assumed repealed longstanding legislation addressed specifically 48 how anything repealer construing thereunder demonstrated why indeed thereafter, forbade review, authority whatsoever. broke old actions, certified. reason, prohibition, refrain applying cited persuade otherwise. Conneries, 1292(b); done, later. postdate appealability final. there, mentioned short footnote dictum heavily relied Government. little quote us. outcome Whenever decides Far anomalous, potentially dispositive helpful giving power informed reasoning serve lighten litigants alike. 51 cannot, create desirable. conferred, reject. 52 reverse Tidewater's petition lack remand directions title Western Marketing Manufacturing Division Phillips. merged Getty September 30, 1967. contended merger status dismissed, acquiring corporation seller, sale defendant Company ago consummated, relief obtainable Company, appropriate.' Subsequent used take C.A.7, 1244—1248, cert. denied, 1041, 1312, 581 (1972). Columbia Circuit, Farbenfabriken Bayer, A.G. CCH Trade Cas. 72,570, 959, 397, 373 (1968); Glaxo Group, Misc. 3261 (June 25, 1968). 986, 1245, 452 404 941, 280, 254 (1971). Sept. 2, Pub.L. 85—919, 72 1770. Broadcasting, Inc. (1963), modified, 994, 627, 467 (1964). three-judge convened General certifies 'general importance.' 44. reflection 'great importance' mechanism 'before appeals.' H.R.Rep. 3020, 57th Cong., 2d Sess., (1903). used. Feb. Mar. 3, 1911, 291, 1167; June 1944, c. 239, 58 272; 17, 62 989. enacted, follows: 'That hereafter sixty thereof effected codifications March 826. 828. 1900, 803, 660, amending 7, 828, 18, 1895, 666 425, Brandeis, speaking detailed causes prompted Act: 'Congress sought insure speedy Before opportunities many. Appeals; months court; year 517, 826, 829. E. C. Knight C.C., 60 F. 306; 934; 156 249, 325; Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 53 440; 58; 166 290, 540, 1007. injunction, 660.' 203, 1125, (1945). 662, 664 (CA1, 1969); 1546, Fairbanks); supra. 1890, 647, 209. saying accepting premise underlies 2—namely, incapable laws. infra, 170. existence reservations dispelled. Frankfurter & J. Landis, Business 258 (1927). Since appeals—including field litigation—which doubts. ibid. Apr. 14, 1627, 116. 129, 1134. 1925, 937. 1928, 422. removed limitation appeals' cause.' codifying cause' struck, 'notwithstanding might, regulating same, famous Judges' Bill struck 'notwithstanding' provision, 'taken (an) (granting receiver) 1928 completely applicability issued Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Canal Zone. S.Rep.No. 2192, 59th 1st Sess. (1906); 542, 1723, 1742, 4429, 4856—4857, 5056. 1911 388, 61st pt. p. (1910); H.R.Doc.No. 783, 57 H.R.Rep.No. 818, S.Doc.No. 848, 3d (1911); 4001. 362, 68th (1924); 1075, 4—5 (1925); Hearing S. 2060 2061 Subcommittee Committee Judiciary, (1924). 20, render ineffective evasive pleading tactics employed advantage nonconstitutional stake constitutional involved. 2—3 1723 Rep. Brantley); 4856 Bacon). concerning designed 'remove doubt' limitation—initially amendment—on eliminated. specific amendment. (1910). response inquiry constituted Senator Heyburn, sponsor legislation, floor, 'This prepared committee drafted explained 'eliminated repeal of' necessitated addition dropping so. elsewhere Bill, carried forward alteration. 238(1), 938. doing so, stated: 'A Acts parts otherwise: (1) February 'to expedite hearing determination' Ibid. Van Devanter, member bill, testified character 'suggest(s) go introduced Certainly spoke fully cognizant just before, sitting Justices submitted Congress. Assn., say: '(Extraordinary) substitute authorized where, here, scheme permits permissible reviews.' 1125 exigent denial justified common-law 203—204, 1125—1126. Beers, stating '(w)hat (in Assn.) instance,' 1133, 1292(a)(1). Of signifies statements 929. 1951 Guam inserted 31, 1951, 49, 726, Territory Alaska effective admission into Union 1959, 12(e), 348. (b) designated (a). portion receivers related became 1292(2) (1946 ed., Supp. II), 1292(a)(2). 1559, 80th 1—2 (1948) ('great care exercised meet approval'); 308, 1—8 (1947). 2646 Revision Laws House Representatives accompany H.R. 7124, 79th App. A107—108 (1946). 308 Judiciary 3214, A110—111 Compare 23, 160—161. Similarly, concluded (CA9 1963). 509, 511—517 2434, 85th (1958) U.S.Code Cong. Admin. News 5255; 1667, (1958). single concluded—despite unqualified contrary—that 511—517. (§ 1292(b)). (1958); Hearings 6238 104 8002 Keating). Proceedings Regular Annual Meeting Conference 32—33 (1951); Special (1952); 27—28 (1953). limitations instance goes state: 'Disposition considerable run jurisdiction.' Admin.News, 5256 Chief Judge John Parker's testimony hearings trebledamages 15. Admin.News 2—3; escape case; (2) nevertheless former, 'whatever nonappealability.' Reply Brief 7—8. discussion Part sufficient dispose second 1292(a); words, supplement it. 35, be, least, resorted subtle method type hint whatsoever resulted reaffirmed prerequisite government 'congress matters, 1512. Shoe. holding did, 'final,' 306 309, 1513—1515, foreclosed remark preclusion lightly dismissed. sole certiorari. Only foreclosed. question; parties—as defendants. 1241 (CA7), (service process); G. 72,570 (CADC), (1968) (quasi rem jurisdiction). Other issues, raised propriety acquisitions. 1963); evidence 41, enjoined accomplished, requests after, most, record. numerous documents forced deal immediately but, alternative entails serious own. respect, recalled effectiveness dependent willingness assume aware import them, desire am containing 823. idea (id., 1774); Hughes wont 'Footnotes really count.' Not dismissal affirmance. Including 936. 492; Topco Associates, 596, 1126, 515. 1967—1971 Terms reversed hand affirmed (some companion argued), moot, want Bayer 216, 358, ruled Standard Fruit S.S. 406, 684, 634, corporation, inspect divestiture plans pursuant consent Garrett Freightlines 1035, 1311, 577, Interstate Commerce Commission question. 209, 1—7. 15, 1914, 730, et seq., 19, 1936, 1526, 13a, 13b, 21a, 1013. 1950, 21. H.R.Rep.No.3020, Fairbanks, leading exponent reporting Senate: far-reaching arising books therein, reasonable speeding importance. object.' 1679. Fairbanks that: '(E)very study committees Conference. itself request Administrative Office direction appealable. believes constitutes Any safeguarded, useless expenditure approbation justice States.' 4, U.S.Code, Congressional News, pp. 5255—5257. 'There illustrations furnished. example, plea claim limitations. trial. Disposition Id. 3. referred apparently introduced, study, (n. supra), whose members—all eminent judges—were familiar explains quoting letter .. suggest rule, me, to. suggested bench receiving concluded: 'In extremely difficult violence bar, excepting 517.

Category: 8