Legal Document

340 U.S. 36 71 Supreme Court Reporter 104 95 L.Ed. UNITED STATESv.MUNSINGWEAR, Incorporated Nos. 23, 24. Argued Oct. 18, 1950. Decided Nov. 13, Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., for the United States. John M. Palmer, Minneapolis, Minn., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion of Court. 1 The States filed a complaint on two counts against respondent, alleging violations regulation fixing maximum price commodities which respondent sold. first count prayed an injunction, second sought treble damages. By agreement and pre-trial order was held in abeyance pending trial final determination suit injunction. same procedure followed as respects another damages raising issues covering later period. District that respondent's prices complied with regulation. Accordingly it dismissed complaint. 63 F.Supp. 933. appealed from judgment to Appeals. While appeal commodity involved decontrolled. Respondent then moved dismiss ground case had become moot. Appeals granted motion mootness. Fleming versus Munsingwear, Inc., 8 Cir., 162 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 125. 2 damage actions unreversed injunction res judicata those other actions. This granted, directing be dismissed. On Appeals, by divided vote, affirmed. 178 204. 3 controversy each suits concerned proper pricing formula applicable under That question issue determined suit. parties were both There is no but jurisdiction over subject matter. And its remains unmodified. We start falls squarely within classic statement rule Southern Pacific R. company States, 168 1, 48—49, 18 27, 42 355: 4 'The general principle announced numerous cases right, question, or fact distinctly put issue, directly court competent jurisdiction, gound recovery, cannot disputed subsequent between their privies; even if different cause action, once so must, privies, taken conclusively established, long unmodified.' 5 see Cromwell County Sac, 94 351, 352, 24 195; Commissioner Internal Revenue Sunnen, 333 591, 597 598, 68 715, 719, 92 898. whether sold violation federal regulation, having been suit, therefore laid at rest seeks bring litigation end promote certainty legal relations. 6 result unless dismissal mootness deprivation any review warrant exception established rule. 7 absence right Johnson Wharton, 152 252, 14 608, 38 429, make difference, being binding claim. Petitioner argues distinguishable because here Congress provided appeal. It contends protected, rigors must alleviated. Concededly would ones appeal, though available, not perfected. Wilson Deen, 121 525, 1004, 30 980; Hubbell 171 203, 828, 43 136. But said who have prevented obtaining they are entitled should treated there review. argument. hardship contrary presented. Estoppel urged. authorities advanced support view apply this situation.1 we reason creating exception. If case, preventable. practice dealing civil system has moot while way our decision merits reverse vacate below remand direction dismiss.2 Duke Power Greenwood County, 299 259, 267, 57 202, 205, 81 178, 'the duty appellate court'. clears path future relitigation elminates judgment, through happenstance. When followed, rights all preserved; none prejudiced statutory scheme only preliminary. 9 In made judgment. acquiesced dismissal. did avail itself remedy preserve rights. Denial could here. Our supervisory power judgments lower courts broad one. See 28 Code KF62 § 2106, Annotated KF65 U5 62 Statutes-at-Large 963; Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-Fahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 466, 478, 212, 217, 60 387; Walling James V. Reuter, 321 671, 676—677, 64 826, 829, 88 1001. As already indicated, commonly utilized precisely situation prevent unreviewable mootness, spawning consequences. 10 one where slept rights, now asks us do what orderly done itself. illustrates need providing terminal points litigation. 11 Affirmed. 12 BLACK applied circumstnaces shown. Gelpi Tugwell, 123 377; Allegheny Maryland Casualty Co., 146 633; Scott, Collateral Judgment, 56 Harv.L.Rev. 1. Restatement, Judgments, 69(2) reads follows: 'Where party obtain matter him immaterial moot, conclusive action action.' standard disposition cases: Board Flour Inspectors Port New Orleans Glover, 161 101, 103, 16 492, 40 632, modifying 160 170, 321, 382; Berry Davis, 242 468, 37 208, 61 441; American-Asiatic Steamship 537, 233, 479; Public Utility Commissioners Compania General de Tabacos Filipinas, 249 425, 39 332, 687; Commercial Cable Burleson, 250 360, 512, 1030; Alaska 253 113, 448, 808; Heitmuller Stokes, 256 359, 41 522, 65 990; Atherton Mills Johnston, 259 422, 66 814; Brownlow Schwartz, 261 216, 263, 67 620; Alejandrino Quezon, 271 528, 46 600, 70 1071; ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Tariff Commission, 274 106, 47 499, 949; Anchor Coal 279 812, 49 262, 73 971; Alexander Sprunt & Son 281 249, 50 315, 74 832; Hargis Bradford, 283 781, 51 342, 75 1411; Mahan Hume, 287 575, 53 223, 77 505; Railroad Commission Texas MacMillan, 576, Coyne Prouty, 289 704, 658, 1461; First Union Trust Savings Bank Consumers' 290 585, 54 61, 78 517; Danciger Oil Refining Smith, 599, 209, 526; O'Ryan Novelty 292 609, 779, 1469; Hammond Clock Schiff, 293 529, 55 146, 79 639; Bracken S.E.C., 504, 374; Leader Apex Hosiery 302 656, 58 362, 82 508; Woodring Clarksburg-Columbus Short Route Bridge 365, 509; Retail Food Clerks Managers Local Number 1357 Premier Stores, 308 526, 376, 84 445; S.E.C. Long Island Lighting 325 833, 1085, 89 1961; Montgomery Ward 326 690, 140, 90 406; Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen Enginemen Lodge 926 Toledo, Peoria Western 332 748, 53, 335; Engineers Service 788, 96, 370; Hodge Tulsa Election Board, 335 889, 69 250, 93 427; Philadelphia 337 901, 1047, 1715. So far concerned, few exceptions recent years. Cantos Styer, 329 686, 364, 91 602; Uyeki 689, 486, 604; Pan American Airways Corporation W. Grace 827, 401; Schenley Distilling Anderson, 878, 914, 1154.

Classification Label: 8