Document: 434 U.S. 425 98 S.Ct. 702 54 L.Ed.2d 659 VENDO COMPANYv.LEKTRO-VEND CORPORATION et al. No. 76-156. Jan. 23, 1978. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner has filed a motion "for clarification of mandate" in this case, and respondents have memorandum answer to petitioner's motion.* We decided case last Term on June 29, 1977, 433 623, 97 2881, 53 1009; Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered plurality opinion for himself, STEWART, POWELL; BLACKMUN an concurring the result himself The Chief Justice. While these opinions did not agree their reasoning, each them concluded that judgment Court Appeals Seventh Circuit, 545 F.2d 1050, which had turn affirmed issuance injunction by District Northern Illinois, 403 F.Supp. 527, should be reversed. STEVENS, dissenting BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL. Members would Circuit. Court, using language customary such documents, ordered "that cause be, same is hereby, remanded United States Circuit further proceedings conformity with Court." On August 19, entered order remanding proceedings, Supreme rendered 1977." 2 A timely petition rehearing was contending, inter alia : 3 "The Concurring Opinion . explicitly based false assumption 'only one state-court proceeding involved case.' states 'the failed properly apply California Motor Transport rule' because 4 " 'The court believed it enough Vendo's activities single were genuine attempts use state adjudicative process legitimately' [433 U.S., at 645, S.Ct., 2894]. 5 "That interpretation Court's findings erroneous." 6 This denied October 3, 1977. 881, 242, 164. 7 Meanwhile, took position issued continued binding spite decision, petitioner therefore asking preliminary previously formally dissolved. thus far declined dissolve injunction, asserts expressed view still effect until dissolved court, any action collect its judgments risk contempt. 8 Respondents' states, correctly we believe, "[i]n effect, Motion Clarification mandamus grant Dissolve." Respondents contend required earlier issued, but permitted decide before Vendo can appeal. 9 sets forth contentions made Cou t after remand as why These are: (1) fact are warranted record support injunction; (2) finding grave abuse courts Vendo, seeking precise conduct prescribed antitrust laws, fully (3) permit supplemented evidence newly discovered since prior hearing; (4) protection offered so-called consent decrees representations opposing stay. 10 believe parties correct treating mandamus, available party who prevailed if lower "does proceed execute mandate, or disobeys mistakes meaning ." v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445, 446, 16 L.Ed. 185 (1859). Put another way, "[w]hen been once appeal, whatever disposed decree, considered finally settled. bound decree law case; must carry into execution, according mandate. If misconstrues does give full may controlled, either upon new appeal (if involving sufficient amount) writ mandate court." In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 247, 255, 291, 293, 40 414 (1895). 11 both treat leave file are, so doing, Rule 31 requires "shall served judge judges whom sought directed There no indication papers service made. granting serve useful purpose, typically routine directing decision carried effect. failing out remedy pursuant 31, including directed. denied, without prejudice filing mandamus. 12 It ordered. * entitles present "Motion Mandate." Unless specifically directs contrary, however, formal mandates do issue cases coming from federal courts. See 59. No case. Accordingly, read judgment.

Category: 8