Legal Document

344 U.S. 206 73 Supreme Court Reporter 245 97 L.Ed. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONv.MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. Number 11. Argued Oct. 15 and 16, 1952. Decided Dec. 22, Mr. Robert L. Stern, Acting Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Albert R. Connelly, New York City, respondent. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The initial question in this case is one jurisdiction whether petition certiorari was filed within period allowed by law.1 We hold that it not. 2 cause grows out a proceeding initiated petitioner, Federal Trade Commission, 1943. At time, Commission issued three-count complaint against Count & N Immigration Nationality Decisions charged violation § 5 Act;2 II 3 Clayton Act;3 III dealt with an alleged 2(a) Act as amended Robinson-Patman Act.4 A protracted administrative followed. finally determined respondent on all three counts, cease desist order, parts, covering each violations. Respondent petitioned Appeals Seventh Circuit to review set aside order. sought enforcement parts its order cross-petition. 4 abandoned completely attack Parts In briefs oral argument, made clear legality Part only contested issue before Appeals. Neither party briefed or argued any arising II. On July 5, 1951, announced decision. 191 Reporter, 2nd Series 786, 787. stated since did not 'challenge based first two counts we shall make no further reference them.' court then went petitioner's could be sustained substantial evidence should reversed. same day, entered judgment, pertinent portion reading follows: 6 '* * ordered adjudged decision January 14, 1948, be, hereby, Reversed, upon which hereby Dismissed.' 7 requires petitions rehearing 'within days after entry judgment.' such petition. August 21, long expiration 15-day period, certified copy said lieu mandate, issued, memorandum reads part 'On 8 judgment reversing dated 1948 dismissing based. No disposition has been Cross-Petition affirmance entire takes position sustained, i.e., extent enter herein decree affirming Commission's commanding Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company obey comply therewith *. 9 '11. petitioner challenged validity (see page brief March 15, 1951). Thus, concedes does contest prayer respect order.' 10 Clearly, alteration relative III; fact, acknowledged ofjudgment 1951. It even claim rehearing. submitted were uncontested, 'In conclusion desist.' 11 September 18, what called 'Final Decree.' Again 'ordered, decreed' 'is reversed dismissed.' affirm II, providing their enforcement, reciting again there over phase 12 December certiorari. Obviously, time unless ninety-day filing began run anew from second our granting certiorari, 342 940, 72 552, asked counsel discuss 'timeliness application writ.' 13 Petitioner refers us cases have held when considers merits untimely rehearing, motion amend matters substance appeal may begin date disposed application.5 14 apparently would equate affecting III. But certainly language every inference therein contrary. When memorandum, seeking had expired. Moreover, labeled neither nor previous manner purport seek relief. contrary, indicated quite content let Appeals' stand undisturbed. Since cannot treat 21 it, enlarged simply because paper prompted below take some action effect are now 16 tells must deemed 'when actually changes begins irrespective filed.'6 think interpretation decisions too liberal. 17 While true power supersede new one,7 also true, itself recognized, losing just lower discretion thinks enlarged.8 mere fact previously reentered revised immaterial way toll sought.9 Only substance,10 resolves genuine ambiguity,11 rendered taken anew. test practical one. court, disturbed legal rights obligations which, prior plainly properly settled finality.12 18 seeks review, meet test. reiterated, without change, everything decided 5. controversy between parties related adjudicated ascribe significance, far timeliness concerned, later judgment.13 19 puts great emphasis Decree' Appeals, whereas word 'Final' missing petitioning turn adjective chose use caption judgment. Indeed, purposes final. put rest questions litigated 'tentative, informal incomplete'.14 Consequently, accept view will constitute invitation other litigants piecemeal future. 20 while do mean encourage applications today's decision, applicants heed another principle—the principle litigation at definite point brought end.15 reflected statutes limit appellate those where prescribed period. Those applied so permit tolling limitations event occurred import review. Accordingly, writ dismissed. 22 Writ 23 BLACK, dissenting. 24 end result today leave standing clearly wrong well argument. directing stop violating selling oil burner controls customers cheaper than others. permitted under circumstances. much dismiss Minneapolis-Honeywell. doing invaded area Congress exclusive concern Commission. See versus Morton Salt Co., 334 37, 55, 68 822, 832, 92 1196; Power Idaho 17, 20, 85, 86; Communications Pottsville Broadcasting 309 134, 145—146, 60 437, 442—443, 84 656. 25 substantiate finding quantity discount pricing system resulted price discriminations violated Act. given substantially bigger discounts purchases competitors. And found these variations justified differences costs manufacture, sale delivery. emphasized showing amply supports 47, 829, 1196. here failed follow holding case. For reason 26 following facts show time. entirety. Later conceded court's pass provisions order.1 ninety ask partial if 'final' Within days, remainder response expanded came down marked rendition Decree,' dismisses. 27 statute, precedent relied dismissal cause. Of course appealability depends being legalistic sense. more ambiguous lexicon.2 thought 'final.' Counsel evidently believed am confident many lawyers Court's former cases. So viewed holding. Former pointed strongly rejection incomplete attempted 'piecemeal' review.3 28 majority advances logical rational grounds rather That 'final,' legalistically speaking, equally supportable logic, precedent, so.4 arguing 'finality' ignore declared type reviewable both here. frustrate declaration denied litigant his failure guess right confronted 1951 puzzle, answer know until today. 29 cited ways grant bedeviled confused judicially created fog 'finality.'5 recognized vagueness finality rule refused throw who acted bona fide. unfortunate fails utilize kind judicial ingenuity afford saw fit provide public interest. 30 proceedings nine years ago. Sixteen hundred pages record. goes nought lacked sufficient clairvoyance anticipate Rules practice procedure used promote ends justice, defeat them.6 31 DOUGLAS, 32 believe BLACK indicates, join deal timely United States Code KF62 2101(c), Annotated KF65 U5 2101(c). 38 Statutes-at-Large 719, 45, 45. 731, 14. 730, amended, 49 1526, 13(a), 13(a). Pfister Northern Illinois Finance Corp., 1942, 317 144, 149, 63 133, 137, 87 146; Bowman Loperena, 1940, 311 262, 266, 61 201, 203, 85 177; Wayne Gas company Owens-Illinois Glass 1937, 300 131, 137—138, 57 382, 385—386, 81 557. Brief Page 43. 452, 452; see Zimmern States, 1936, 298 167, 56 706, 80 1118. Fine Paramount Pictures, Cir., 1950, 181 300, 304. Department Banking, State Nebraska Pink, 264, 233, 254; Toledo Scale Computing 1923, 261 399, 43 458, 67 719; Credit Limited Arkansas Central 1888, 128 258, 107, 448. 1935, 169, 707, 1118; compare Banking supra. Compare 1952, 85. Rubber Goodyear, 1868, Wall. 153, 762 (appeal decree, restating most entry, regarded tentative); City Memphis Brown, 1877, 94 715, 244 ground material first). Hark, 1944, 320 531, 533—534, 64 359, 360, 88 290; Hill Hawes, 520, 523, 334, 336, 283. suggestion injected into litigation—the enforce cross-petitioned Cf. Ruberoid 343 470, 800. soght issue, done start, raising objections Instead, Having so, removed involved Dickinson Petroleum Conversion 338 507, 514, 70 322, 325, 299. Matton Steamboat Murphy, 1943, 319 412, 415, 1126, 1128, 1483. See, e.g., 'Though decided, thing, though merely formal, remains done, subject. If intermediate stage might supreme repeated oppression parties.' Marshall speaking Life Fire insurance Adams, 1835, Pet. 573, 602, 234. 'We final appeal. final, dispose Keystone Manganese Iron Martin, 132 91, 93, 32, 33 275. 'It King's Bench England, lie whole suit of. sent up fragments.' Holcombe McKusick, 1857, How. 554, 1020. 'Probably equity subject frequent discussion decrees. cases, conceded, altogether harmonious.' McGourkey Ohio 146 536, 544—545, 170, 172, 36 1079. 511, 324, multitude supported belief counsel. following: 'But appeals never encouraged.' Morgantown, W. Va. Royal 337 254, 69 1067, 1070, 93 1347. 'Congress very beginning has, forbidding single controversy, enfeebling administration.' Cobbledick 323, 540, 541, 783. 'The foundation policy technical conceptions 'finality.' litigation. fragments *.' Luxton North River Bridge 147 337, 341, 356, 358, 37 194.' Catlin 324 229, 233—234, 65 631, 633—634, 89 911. 'Upon doubt 28th November intended settling terms thereafter; 5th essential elements followed treated such. governed obvious intent Court, apparent face proceedings. hold, therefore, decree.' 1867, 155 156, 762. 20—21, 86—87; 283; 244. Note 4. Hormel Helvering, 312 557, 721, 1037. Maty Grasselli Chemical 303 197, 200—201, 58 509, 82 745. Hazel-Atlas Hartford-Empire 322 238, 997, 1250.

Classification Label: 8