Document: 457 U.S. 624 102 S.Ct. 2629 73 L.Ed.2d 269 James EDGAR, Appellantv.MITE CORPORATION and Mite Holdings, Inc. No. 80-1188. Argued Nov. 30, 1981. Decided June 23, 1982. Syllabus The Illinois Business Take-Over Act requires a tender offeror to notify the Secretary of State target company its intent make offer terms 20 days before becomes effective. During that time may not communicate shareholders, but is free disseminate information shareholders concerning impending offer. also any takeover be registered with State. A defined as corporation which own 10% class securities subject or for two following conditions are met: has principal office in Illinois, organized under laws, at least stated capital paid-in surplus represented within An after registration filed unless he calls hearing adjudicate fairness Appellee MITE Corp., Delaware laws Connecticut, initiated all outstanding shares Chicago Rivet & Machine Co., an corporation, by filing Securities Exchange Commission schedule required Williams Act. MITE, however, did comply Act, brought action Federal District Court seeking declaratory judgment was pre-empted violated Commerce Clause, injunctive relief. issued preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement against MITE's then published Subsequently, requested permanent injunction. Shortly, thereafter, entered into agreement whereby both made were withdrawn given specified another Ultimately, decided Appeals affirmed Court. Held : affirmed. 633 F.2d 486, Justice WHITE delivered opinion respect Parts I, II, V-B, concluding that: 1 1. case moot. Because indicated his intention enforce reversal Court's would expose civil criminal liability making violation P. 630. 2 2. unconstitutional because it imposes burdens on interstate commerce excessive light local interests purports further. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 137, 90 844, 25 174. Illinois' asserted protecting resident security holders regulating internal affairs companies incorporated law insufficient outweigh such burdens. Pp. 643-646. 3 Russell C. Grimes, Jr., Chicago, Ill., appellant. 4 Eugene D. Berman, New York City, amicus curiae, special leave 5 Richard W. Hulbert, appellees. 6 Stephen N. Shapiro, S.E.C. 7 opinion, V-B Court.* 8 issue this whether Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 1211/2, ¶ 137.51 et seq. (1979), Supremacy Clauses Constitution. 9 * Corp. wholly owned subsidiary, corporations their executive offices Connecticut. Appellant Edgar charged administration Under offer1 must 137.54.A (1979). other issuer located equity offer, three 137.52-10. statement hearing. 137.54.E. call during 20-day waiting period substantive if believes necessary protect company, held majority company's outside directors who 137.57.A. If does hold hearing, directed statute deny finds "fails provide full fair disclosure offerees material take-over inequitable work tend fraud deceit upon offerees. . ." 137.57.E. 10 On January 19, 1979, cash publicly Schedule 14D-1 order Act.2 willing pay $28 per share Rivet, premium approximately $4 over then-prevailing market price. commenced litigation same day United States Northern Illinois. complaint asked Clause. In addition, sought temporary restraining injunctions from enforcing 11 responded later bringing suit Pennsylvania, where conducted most business, enjoin proceeding proposed ground Pennsylvania Takeover Disclosure Law, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 70, § 71 (Purdon Supp.1982-1983). After Rivet's efforts obtain relief proved unsuccessful,3 took steps invoke February 1, notified intended requiring cease desist further Rivet. 2, letter file state court renewed request 12 edition Wall Street Journal. residing throughout States. stock worth $23 million offering 40% $30 share.4 final 9, declaring preempted Accordingly, permanently enjoined MITE. Shortly entered, offers 30 examine books records either $31 March 12, agreed oppose, decide acquire assets. App. Brief Appellees 1a-4a. announced decision 13 Seventh Circuit sub nom. Dixon, 486 (1980). It several provisions unduly We noted probable jurisdiction, 451 968, 101 2043, 68 347 (1981), now affirm. II 14 specifically found moot, F.2d, 490, reasoning intends liability5 5, agree. urged complete defense penalties. While, STEVENS' concurrence indicates, frivolous question means; when initiates action. That foreclosed we agree unconstitutional. III 15 first address holding note outset passing amendment 1934, Congress amend 28(a) 1934 U.S.C. 78bb(a).6 pertinent part, provides follows: 16 "Nothing title shall affect jurisdiction commission (or agency officer performing like functions) person insofar conflict rules regulations thereunder." 48 Stat. 903. 17 Thus explicitly prohibit takeovers; left determination conflicts courts. Of course, void extent actually valid federal statute; 18 "[a] will 'where compliance physical impossibility .,' Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Paul, 373 132, 142-143 [83 1210, 1217, 248] (1963), 'law stands obstacle accomplishment execution purposes objectives Congress.' Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67 [61 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581] (1941); Jones Rath Packing [430 519,] 526, 540-541 [97 1305, 1310, 1317, 51 604 (1977)]. Accord, De Canas Bica, 424 351, 363 [96 933, 940, 47 43] (1976)." Ray Atlantic Richfield 435 151, 158 [98 988, 994, 55 179] (1978). 19 Our inquiry narrowed since there no contention impossible more burdensome requirements law. thus is, Appeals, frustrates some substantial way. passed 1968, congressional response increased use corporate acquisitions, device had "removed number control contests reach existing laws." Piper Chris-Craft Industries, 430 22 926, 939, 124] (1977). filled regulatory gap. requirements. First, commencement SEC, publish send furnish detailed about 78n(d)(1); CFR 240.24d-3 (1981). disclose background identity; source funds used purchase; purpose purchase, including plans liquidate major changes structure; offeror's holdings company. 78m(d)(1) (1976 ed., Supp.IV); 240.13d-1 See n. supra. Second, stockholders withdraw them yet purchased shares, 60 78n(d)(5).7 Third, tendered price; price increased, those have already receive benefit increase. 78n(d)(7).8 21 There imposing these requirements, investors. supra, 35, 97 946; Rondeau Mosinee Paper 422 49, 58, 95 2069, 2075, 45 (1975); S.Rep.No.550, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-4 (1967) (Senate Report). But crystal clear aspect effort investor avoid favoring management bidder. As Piper, originally embodied S. 2731 "were avowedly pro-management defeat bids." U.S., S.Ct., 943. became convinced "that bids should discouraged they serve useful providing check entrenched inefficient management." Senate Report, 3.9 apparent often successful defeating attempts. legislation evolved, therefore, disclaimed "intention weapon discourage bids," expressly embraced policy neutrality. Senator explained: "We taken extreme care tipping scales favor 113 Cong.Rec. 24664 (1967). This "evenhandedness," 31, 944, conviction neither side contest extended additional advantages vis-a-vis investor, furnished adequate position informed choice. We, only furnishing him withholding bidder undue advantage could frustrate exercise 496. To implement protection while maintaining balance between bidder, latter occasion. With filing, go forward, purchased, stockholder shares. He protected increased. Looking history whole, appears us, strike management, "inten[tion] do than give incumbent opportunity express explain position." 2075. Once extended, anticipated so chose, move forward frame provided Congress. IV 23 identified upset careful struck therefore stand obstacles essential respects. 24 business &Par; 137.54.E, 137.54.B time, shareholders. 137.54.A. Meanwhile, contrast apparent. pre-commencement notification requirement; critical date "first sent holders." 78n(d)(1). 240.14d-2 take combat precommencement powerful tool offers, perhaps detriment period.10 These consequences precisely what determined avoided, reason, provision 26 important course events leading adoption times refused impose requirement. October 1965, introduced 2731, bill public 5% securities. 111 28259 (1965). commented "the requirement advance notice unnecessary holders. 112 19005 (1966). new 1967, 510, confidential five prior 510 enacted elimination Report 27 "At hearings review cases might delay essence. view authority responsibility appropriate event inadequate misleading disseminated solicit acceptance approved committee public." 4. 28 rejected proposal deliberations 1970 amendments Act.11 B 29 For similar reasons, introducing process. allows proceed until completed. 137.57.A deadline completion 137.57.C Although render conclusion without limitation. Not power indefinitely, by, among persons, "as post shown record beneficially, both, offer." Since many control, directly indirectly, insisting observed, potentially afford "powerful stymie indefinitely takeover." 494.12 enacting itself "recognized can seriously impede offer" it. Great Western Kidwell, 577 1256, 1277 (CA5 1978); 4.13 reemphasized Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements 1976, Pub.L. 94-435, 1397, 31 "[I]t short [the 10-day proration 14(d)(6) applies commenced] founded concern longer firm's permit pro-competitive tenders. ten-day underscores basic Act—to maintain neutral towards avoiding lengthy delays chances success." H.R.Rep.No.94-1373, p. (1976),14 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, pp. 2572, 2644. 32 said, investors unreasonable delay. potential expense stockholders. C 33 concluded pass 137.57.E law, (emphasis added).15 understood legislative indicate decisions. Both House Reports observed "designed relevant facts known decision." H.R.Rep.No.1711, 2d (1968), 2811, 2813; 3. Thus, "[t]he autonomy—an approach quite adopted Congress." 494. V 34 Clause "Congress Power [t]o regulate States." U.S.Const., Art. 8, cl. "[A]t Cooley Board Wardens, 53 (12 How.) 299, 996 (1852), been 'the even implementing limitation States.' " Pacific Tea Co. Cottrell, 366, 370-371, 96 923, 927, (1976), quoting Freeman Hewitt, 329 249, 252, 274, 276, 91 265 (1946). Lewis BT Investment Managers, 447 27, 100 2009, 2014, 64 702 every impact invalid. upheld "regulates evenhandedly effectuate legitimate interest, effects incidental burden imposed clearly relation putative benefits." 142, 847, 174 (1970), citing Huron Cement Detroit, 362 440, 443, 80 813, 815, 852 (1960). permits regulation States; direct prohibited. Shafer Farmers Grain 268 189, 199, 481, 485, 69 909 (1925). 847. violates principles reasons. regulates prevents, satisfied, turn generate transactions. 35 traditionally regulated intrastate transactions,16 enact "blue-sky" challenges occasions. Hall Geiger-Jones 242 539, 37 217, 61 480 (1917); Caldwell Sioux Falls Stock Yards 559, 224, 493 Merrick Halsey 568, 227, 498 (1917). rationale upholding blue-sky transactions occurring "The apply dispositions foreign countries ., affected license one deals Such [securities] incidentally." 557-558, 223 (citations omitted). recognized validity governing 78bb(a), save pre-emption." Leroy 443 173, 182, n.13, 99 2710, 2716, 464 36 differs substantially place across lines, ordinarily communicated mails means country abroad. closed means. case, offeror, scattered around country, 27% whom live necessarily employed facilities communicating which, accepted, result lines. themselves commerce. Yet complied with, prevent living having connection Indeed, face single meeting conditions: 137.52-10(2) applied shareholder. restraint sweeping extraterritorial effect. Furthermore, regulations, generated thoroughly stifled. "a operation interferes [interstate] prohibited invalid, regardless enacted." Hughes Alexandria Scrap 426 794, 806, 2488, 2496, 49 220 (1976). precludes application takes State's borders, Southern Arizona, 325 761, 775, 65 1515, 1523, 89 1915 (1945), down grounds "practical effect [conduct] beyond boundaries state. limits "any attempt 'directly' assert persons property offend sister exceed inherent power." Shaffer Heitner, 433 186, 197, 2569, 2576, 683 38 interdict commerce, State, invalid Pacific. 39 test served statute. obvious arises statute's previously described nationwide determine anywhere. 40 allowing block substantial. Shareholders deprived sell premium. reallocation economic resources highest valued use, process improve efficiency competition, hindered. incentive mechanism perform well prices remain high reduced. Easterbrook Fischel, Proper Role Target's Management Responding Tender Offer, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1161, 1173-1174 (1981); Efficient Capital Market Theory, Corporate Control, Regulation Cash Offers, 57 Texas L.Rev. 27-28, (1978); 41 claims furthers interests. argues seeks merely 42 While plainly objective, interest nonresident Insofar out-of-state transactions, nothing weighed sustain note, furthermore, completely exempts coverage corporation's acquisition 137.52-9(4) able competing complying leaving depend protections afforded views contexts. distinction variance purpose, tends undermine appellant's justification 43 unconvinced enhances shareholders' position. disclosures regarding assuring according withdrawal, proration, equal consideration rights. However, protections, compare 137.59.C, D, E (1979) (withdrawal, rights), §§ 78n(d)(5), (6), (7) 240.14d-7 (1981) (same). noted, mandated pursuant enhance ability 500. possible benefits outweighed risk fail due defensive tactics management. unprepared disagree respects, conclude affords are, speculative. 44 contends laws. doctrine principle recognizes affairs—matters peculiar relationships current officers, directors, shareholders—because otherwise faced conflicting demands. Restatement (Second) Conflict Laws 302, Comment b, 307-308 (1971). little context. contemplate transfers third party implicate 1280, n.53; Restatement, e, 310. somewhat incredible residents, 137.52-10 corporations. outweighs benefits. accordingly 46 Affirmed. POWELL, concurring part. I MARSHALL view, merits, join opinion. Part leaves room offers. our marked conglomerate formations essentially unrestricted antitrust Often possesses resources, professional personnel experienced takeovers capital, vastly target. disparity disadvantage relatively small regional corporation. Inevitably certain adverse general headquarters moved away city State.* 50 provisions, neutrality, seem assume entities resources. STEVENS Act's neutrality imply designed assure—at circumstances—greater include broader O'CONNOR, 52 portions pre-emption issue, affirm basis. STEVENS, part judgment. 54 moot depends remained If, dissenting granted immunity sanctions acts performed outstanding, hand, purported do, setting aside remove Those courts regard fact proceeding, tantamount grant immunity, rule require absolve liability. believe, resolve mootness issue—which, jurisdictional—we answer MARSHALL's dissent raises. advances various reasons adopting judges desire constitutionality His treat judge's conduct undertaken outstanding. proposes, "if valid, never prosecute individual obtained effect." Post, 657, me, wise; possess immunity. my not. 56 few bear repeating. invoking Three later, statute, unconstitutional; attempted failing register consistent deciding contentions correct; mean absolute prosecution—civil criminal—brought 58 Neither nor practice support interpretation total future prosecution. More fundamentally, blanket dispensation enactments. A. 59 restrains conduct. Its normally limited parties named instrument. mere probability success generally moving demonstrate confidence legal posting bond amount sufficient adversary loss proceedings prove wrongfully.1 bond, effect, party's warranty uphold issuance features inconsistent demonstrates. purport violations occurred effective period. "issuing invoking, applying, Act" Record 16. authorized provisions. Ill.Rev. 137.62, 137.64 Moreover, declaration simply basis construed Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 1209, 505, unanimously wished engage "constitutionally activity" threatened prosecution suggest that, armed district court, violate impunity; indeed, just opposite: 62 '[A] unconstitutionality reflects cannot fully enforced. Court, follows ready reverse statute.' Id., 469-470, 1220-1221 (quoting Perez Ledesma, 401 82, 124, 674, 696, 701 (separate BRENNAN, J.)).2 63 attached possibly greatest significance judgment, writing separately "I anticipate particular plaintiff immune constitutional accorded res judicata very conduct." 477, 1224 (concurring opinion). reversed appeal, certainly imminently constitutionally forced act peril. One legality engaging terms. S.Rep.No.1005, 73d 2-3 (1934). Recognition fact, point assurance punished contemplated activity. judge assurance; litigant painfully aware possibility favorable trial appeal. repeat words Steffel, said is: 'If 470, 1221 696 J.)).3 actions reliance court's decision, injunction—which temporarily restrain conduct—should accomplish result. subsequent fairly statute.4 66 My conclusions proper nature based arcane interpretations common jurisdiction.5 Before exercises governmental power, duty act. statutory law.6 written before, judiciary continue vital function structure limitations authority. Telephone 434 159, 178, 98 364, 375, 376 (STEVENS, J., part). belief reasonable wise predicate judicial power. not—grant law.7 result, consider proper.8 am persuaded, Congress' follow prohibition although assessment holding. MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 70 existence controversy. dispute real outcome dispute. Otherwise, dismissed. Roe Wade, 410 113, 125, 93 705, 712, 147 (1973); SEC Medical Committee Human Rights, 404 403, 407, 92 577, 580, 560 (1972). appeal case. Their positions down. unconstitutional, litigation. constitutional, lifted continued below reversed, initiate penalties failure alleged occurred. below, believe barred commencing injunction, commence words, Secretary, security. enabled offer—subject stage, upheld, proceedings. 72 undoubtedly condition seek effect.1 Determining interpretation. ordinary contains specific language contrary, presumed secures effect; show security.2 presumption likely reflect intentions motion. acting recognize short-term marginally better all. Parties want protection, contemplating solace immunity—when know act, stage.3 74 Here, occur see reason why here. context, recognized, needed. desired future. reluctant entailed considerable expense, penalized later. reserved right initially granted, withdrawn. Record, Plaintiff's Exhibit 14.4 75 Interpreting ensures injunction.5 went reasonably believing circumstances, improper penalize past, pronouncements constitute See, e.g., Marks States, 188, 990, 260 (1977).6 76 addition arguing interpreted action, resolution controlled purchase Idaho officials responsible administering takeovers, Code 30-1501 (1980), objected delayed date. acquisition. reviewing controversy "[T]he Idaho's open finally affirmed." 2714.7 77 easily distinguishable Unlike preinjunction violations.8 distinguished successful. rescission takeover.9 completed, rescission.10 78 Finally, fall exception "are capable repetition, evading review." Unless involved, challenged too litigated cessation, expectation demonstrated complaining Elections Socialist Workers Party, 440 187, 983, 991, 230 (1979); Weinstein Bradford, 423 147, 149, 347, 348, 350 (1975). second satisfied renew breaches agreement,11 again occasion showing 79 disposes paragraph. concedes argues, reached Rather, raised defense. majority, unpersuaded majority's facile analysis. true lift enough keep alive where, matter lacks merit—if automatic action—then 81 difficult injunctions. novel less Certainly, though suit, frivolous, alive. 82 refusal confront particularly ironic, recent Lane Williams, 455 624, 1322, 508 (1982). Respondents pleaded guilty unrelated state-court prosecutions burglary, offense punishable imprisonment mandatory 3-year parole term. respondent plea negotiated sentence included Each completed prison reincarcerated violation. custody, petitions habeas corpus, alleging pleas enter term void, By respondents sentences, expired. reaching conclusion, collateral flow revocations. void. out contrast, refuses law—deciding instead court—so 83 merits addresses constitutional. vacated instructions remand dismiss. 84 REHNQUIST, present justiciable controversy, different reason. 86 restrained interfering withdrew extant Approximately month presently activity indication Therefore, gave rise anti-takeover statutes exist, unlikely repeated met demise obtained. needs Nor need preclude rescinding 87 Despite developments concludes According bring keeps me moot.1 88 pending 'Our extends us.' Oil Missouri, 361 363, 370, 391, 396, (1960), American Book Kansas ex rel. Nichols, 193 394, 613 (1904). kept identical issues currently ripe court. 396; 51, 395. fortiori, exist unripened instant defenses raise Secretary. Secretary's ever ripen "there way [Illinois] be." 371, 396. constitutes suggested dissent. runs afoul courts' ultimate arising unripe, threatened, hardly justifies abstract posture presented.2 propriety alive, vacate dismiss complaint. Munsingwear, 340 36, 39, 104, 106, (1950). THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins entirety; BLACKMUN III, IV; POWELL V-B; O'CONNOR V. defines "take-over 137.52-9 "A conventionally invitation addressed sale price." Note, Developing Meaning "Tender Offer" 1250, 1251 (1973) (footnotes "tender "takeover interchangeably. 454, codified 78m(d)-(e) 78n(d)-(f), added 13(d), 13(e), 14(d)-(f) 1934. Section 14(d)(1) Commission. past financial offeror. problems 240.14d-100 contained purchaser 78l, 13D purchases exceeded 14D-1. Compare 240.13d-101 requesting Law. next day, removed denied motion order. exempt 137.65 willfully 137.63. evidence When Virginia Va.Code 13.1-528 (1978), 1968; months July 1968. Sargent, Validity Regulation: Responses Ohio St.L.J. 689, 690, 7-day withdrawal 240.14d-7(a)(1) exceeds pro rata 78n(d)(6). antifraud provision, 78n(e), required. Sonesta International Hotels Wellington Associates, 483 247, 250 (CA2 1973). opportunities competitive bidding company," namely, 24666 (remarks Sen. Javits). accompanying text, infra. H.R. 4285, 91st Sess. (1970). reported Subcommittee. Instead, contain adopted. 91-567, 1497. promulgated Rule 14d-2(b), 240.14d-2(b) announcing disseminating requisite documents Otherwise announce withdrawing 14d-2(b) operates prospectively only, Fed.Reg. 70326 Delay characterized potent tender-offer fight." Langevoort, Tender-Offer Legislation: Interests, Effects, Political Competency, Cornell 213, 238 Wachtell, Special Offer Litigation Tactics, Bus.Law. 1433, 1437-1442 (1977); Wilner Landy, Trap: Statutes Constitutionality, Ford.L.Rev. 9-10 Commission, enables to: "(1) repurchase securities; "(2) dividend increases splits; "(3) stock; "(4) produce succeed; "(5) arrange merger; "(6) restrictive loan agreements; "(7) institute challenging Amicus Curiae 10, 8. Representative Rodino set greater detail relationship Act: "In mergers, equities danger repeal underlying 1968 Lengthier firm plenty abolishing cumulative voting, arranging speedy merger, quickly incorporating antitakeover negotiating costly lifetime employment contracts And period, target's bid up market, costly—and Should happen, effectively choice tenders them: Either accept thereby gain premium, reject Generally, options conferees so." 122 30877 21-22. state-law "to example, Ill.Rev.Stat. 137.1 (1979 Supp.1980), "prior 137.5. great national multinational large cities transferred metropolitan centers, locality transfer inevitably suffer significantly. personnel—many community leadership—may headquarters. Contributions cultural, charitable, educational life—both leadership diminish Civil Procedure 65(c): "No except giving applicant, sum deems proper, payment costs damages incurred suffered wrongfully restrained. No thereof." apparently recovered injuries caused absence indemnity abuse 69, 333, (1959). 480, 1226 (REHNQUIST, concurring) ("There [Declaratory Judgment] wishing shield behind carry conduct"); id., 482, 1227 ("A rights, binding supplemented continuing sanctions"). unreviewed appeals meaningless. Steffel: 'Even reviewed still cut deterrent persuasive force lead prosecutors, courts, legislators reconsider respective responsibilities toward Enforcement policies construction changed, legislature start anew.' 697 J.)). Liner Jafco, 375 301, picketing site. Petitioners dissolve exclusively cognizance National Labor Relations Board. Petitioners' petition certiorari. appellate site nevertheless properly liable wrongfully. stated: petitioners 'a stake Fiswick 211, 222, 230, 196, exists apart unaffected construction. derives undertaking indemnify 'wrongfully' sued out. Whether turns solely pressed beginning. Tennessee here, recourse Jafco bond." 305-306, 394. appear bond. creates action—that exist—for rights independent presume valid. Liner, pursued out"; "[w]hether beginning." Chief Marshall Ex parte Bollman, (4 Cranch) 75, 93, 554: "As investigation motion, declare disdains constitution, "Courts originate change established principles; created whose transcend jurisdiction. founded, repeatedly court; decisions heretofore rendered point, member bench has, instant, dissatisfied." appropriate—and preserve Mine Workers, 330 258, 289-290, 677, 693-94, 884. "Although temporary, activities court." Doran Salem Inn, 922, 931, 2561, 2567, 648. parties, appeal; "an obeyed orderly proceedings." 293, 695 added). nullify invalidity accepted litigation, paramount nullifies commenced. law—and judges—that REHNQUIST begun. Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 1116, 22, appropriate, "ripe." bar What abandoned engaged determinative believed 373, relied compel contrary terminated enjoined. properly, resolved matters—based questions parties. injunction—the State—has doing. questionable deterred. repugnant Constitution, wish proscribed challenge strong encouraging challenges: Constitution supreme Law Land." Grants help ensure paramount. Holding limit insignificant. doubt irreparable injury granted. propose, prosecuting pendency individual, serious argued recovery automatically entitled damages. appropriate; security, showing. posted, recover (1964). reveal posted Even probably moot; cause argue damaged unable argument prevail. Lost sort recoverable event, dissent, "damages" sustained nominal were, almost become Washington Columbia, 137 62, 4, 572 (1890) (court costs); Hernandez European Auto Collision, 487 378, 387 1973) (nominal damages); Kerrigan Boucher, 450 1971) damages). Cf. 462, 505 (1974) (federal-court intervention applicant situated "between Scylla intentionally flouting Charybdis forgoing becoming enmeshed proceeding"). Hygrade Provision Sherman, 266 497, 500, 141, 402 (1925); Terrace 263 216, 15, 18, 255 (1923); Frank, 501 1974), aff'd 648 find significant granting declares "null Juris. Statement 41a. void" penalties, stay expressed so. Marks, transporting obscene materials overturned, transportation, intervening Cox Louisiana, 379 569-571, 476, 483-484, (1965) (conviction illegal defendant permission police officer); Raley Ohio, 360 423, 437-439, 1257, 1265-1267, 1344 (1959) testify witness chairman privileged silent); Mancuso, 139 (CA3 1943) (defendant ignoring induction notices staying effect). dismissed venue. 30-1502 30-1504, 30-1510 30-1509 (1980) (allowing rescission). empowers sales unlawful 137.62 predicated cover penalizing determines remedy particular, permitted dismantle breach "capable review" exception. likelihood small. unlike in, federally Bus Employees 374 74, 1657, 763 Super Tire Engineering McCorkle, 416 115, 1694, (1974), distinguishable. each planned activities. suggestion remains review. always litigate bases University Camenisch, 390, 1830, 175

Category: 7