Legal Document

396 U.S. 471 90 Supreme Court Reporter 671 24 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 663 Anghel GOLDSTEIN aka Andrei Pietraru et al., Appellants,v.Joseph Atlantic COX al. Number 66. Argued Nov. 17, 1969. Decided Jan. 26, 1970. John R. Vintilla, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants. Daniel M. Cohen, New York City, appellees. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellants are beneficiaries decedents' estates who live in Romania. Their shares these have not been distributed to them, but paid into court their benefit under § 2218 Surrogate's Procedure Act. Section authorizes surrogate order an alien's share a estate when it appears that alien 'would or use control money other property' constituting share.1 2 In 1966, appellants filed complaint District Southern York, challenging what is now on grounds denied them due process and equal protection, unconstitutionally intruded upon Federal Government's conduct foreign relations, conflicted with federal regulations permitting payment funds persons prayed both temporary permanent injunctive relief against further operation statute, therefore requested impaneling three-judge court. A single district judge declined request ground constitutional questions raised were frivolous, Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. This granted certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded case consideration light Zschernig versus Miller, 389 429, 88 664, 19 683, decided same day. 581, 694, 781 (1968). On remand, reversed original Court, by 391 Reporter, 2nd 586 (C.A.2d Cir. 1968). 3 then moved summary urging was unconstitutional, either its face as applied, principles supra. motion they 'the demanded complaint.' They accompanied affidavit, largely consisting memorandum law arguing application courts ran afoul Zschernig. 4 Appellees, surrogates several counties, opposed judgment action be dismissed. accompanying argued there at least triable issue fact whether being constitutionally applied. 5 The did dismiss action. 299 F.Supp. 1389 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1968). held unconstitutional Zschernig, only reported post-Zschernig construction Matter Leikind, 22 N.Y.2d 346, 292 N.Y.S.2d 681, 239 North Eastern 550 (1968), app. docketed, 68, O.T. 1969, show application. 6 From denying took appeal this claiming we had jurisdiction 28 Code KF62 1253, which provides: 7 'Except otherwise provided law, any party may from granting denying, after notice hearing, interlocutory injunction civil action, suit proceeding required Act Congress heard determined three judges.' 8 Appellees oppose jurisdiction, rather affirm. We noted probable 394 996, 89 1593, 774 (1969), received briefs argument confined merits. Further examination since oral has first time question our concluded lack appeal. 9 preliminary Court's plaintiff 'an * injunction' within meaning 1253. construing analogous provision giving appeals hear orders injunctions, 1292(a)(1), ruled denial appealable injunction, where based existence fact. Switzerland Cheese Ass'n. Horne's Market, 385 23, 87 193, 17 23 (1966).2 However need decide treatment should given denials conclude power review injunctions. Since view here no relief, cannot order. 10 along provisions concerning courts, §§ 2281—2284 (a collectivity hereinafter referred Three-Judge Act), derives 266 Judicial 1911, 36 Statutes-at-Large 1162, turn derived Mann-Elkins 1910, 557. As originally enacted, restraining state statute could issued, except court, '(a)n taken directly such case.' grew out public furor over felt abuse powers cases involving economic social legislation. While broad radical proposals made deal problem, including deprive all enjoin officers, compromised would worst abuse—the issuance injunctions statutes, ex parte merely affidavits, subject limited ineffective appellate review. See Phillips States, 312 246, 250, 61 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800 (1941); Hutcheson, Case Three Judges, 47 Harv.L.Rev. 795, 803—810 (1934); Note, Appellate Review, 49 Va.L.Rev. 538, 539—543 (1963). 11 Until 1925, (or, say, preliminary) injunction. year, amended carry requirement forward 43 938, 'in avoid anomalous result having decree judges final hearing.' Va.L.Rev., supra, 543. governing correspondingly allow direct 'a *.' 938. 12 Thus, relating set Code, amended, read follows: 13 'An 14 '* suit.' (Emphasis added.) 15 clearly language can, (1) judgments (2) 16 1948, present 1253 stands. reads, 'granting pernying injunction.' face, well can appealed However, involve expansion mandatory clear prior statute. Reviser's Note indicates intent make substantive change; indeed, refers section consolidation Title 28, themselves adopted Congress.3 more than once stated narrowly construed 'any loose requirements (the Act) defeat purposes keep narrow confines docket.' U.S., 483. Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 368, 375, 69 606, 610, 93 741 (1949); Moore Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 317, 321, 105, 106, 71 273 (1926). That canon must applied redoubled vigor sought reviewed trial absence explicit authorization Congress, piece-meal favored. 24, S.Ct., 194, above others limit orders. Hamilton-Brown Shoe company Wolf Brothers, 240 251, 258, 269, 271, 60 629 (1916). factors, history above, roders 18 record, did, complaint, pray relief. And moving practical step toward obtaining separate none papers, urged appropriateness way adverted possibility granted. Indeed, nature case, never possibility. seeking release outside States. Any sort necessarily effect, hardly awarded determination merits appellants' favor. one, want jurisdiction. It so ordered. Appeal 20 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 21 If judgment1 appellant, constitute 'order Similarly, seems little room constitutes 'denying injunction,' complaint.2 majority relies Association authority dismissing however, solely fact;3 concern case. involves more. claimed face. constituted rejection claim merits, claim. basis, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions find (Supp. 1969), formerly 269—a Act, reads '1. (a) Where shall appear legatee, distributee beneficiary domiciled resident country checks warrants drawn transmitted reason executive order, regulation similar government department agency thereof, property entitled said person thereafter thereto. pursuant competent '(b) assignment fund deposited paragraph one effective confer assignee greater right delivery assignor enjoy. '2. him special circumstances desirable withheld '3. uncertain fiduciary residing Columbia, Commonwealth Puerto Rico territory possession burden proving will receive from, through him.' for, Glass Loshin, 217 936 (2 Cir., 1954) (L. Hand, J.; Frank, J., concurring; Clark, dissenting). contrary appealable, best represented Morgenstern Chemical Schering Corp., 181 160 (C.A.3d 1950). Circuit, even before decision Ass'n., position. Chappell Frankel, 367 197 1966) (en banc). also Judge Moore, Practice 56.21(2), 2791—2792 (2d ed. 1966). left open might 1948 revision change Act; eliminated requirement, imposed 1925 amendment, made. 2281. 'Plaintiffs move enter, Rule 56 Rules Civil Procedure, plaintiffs' favor genuine material matter law; and, especially, 683 (1/15/68), 'The Affidavit Vintilla attached hereto support motion.' 'relief complaint' included: 'That Court) forever enjoining defendants each agents employees, plaintiffs, similarly situated distributive estates, entitled; defendants, agents, ordered directed take necessary deliver owing plaintiffs situated. pending hearing situated, entitled.' involved unfair competition trademark laws, 427, 1051 seq. sole defendant's actions selling cheese labeled 'imported Swiss cheese' imported illegal laws. defense come accepted trade country. found dispute, judgment. await jury facts.

Classification Label: 8