Court Opinion

ID: 9424158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:10:33.05513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:48.153361
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Black concurs,
dissenting.
If summary judgment1 had been granted to appellants there would be no question but that this Court would have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 over an appeal from that judgment, as it would constitute an “order granting ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction.” Similarly, there seems little room for argument that the denial of summary judgment to appellants constitutes an order “denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction,” since such injunctive relief was requested *480in appellants’ complaint.2 The majority opinion relies on Switzerland Assn. v. Horne’s Market, 385 U. S. 23, as authority for dismissing this appeal for want of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. In that case, however, the denial of summary judgment was based solely on the existence of a triable issue of fact;3 the summary judg*481ment did not concern in any way the merits of the case. This case involves more. Appellants claimed that § 2218 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act was unconstitutional on its face. The denial of summary judgment constituted a rejection of this claim on the merits, as well as a denial of injunctive relief based on that claim. On this basis, I would find jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. i 1253 to decide this appeal on the merits.

 The appellants’ motion for summary judgment was as follows:
“Plaintiffs move the court as follows:
“1. That it enter, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor for the relief demanded in the complaint on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that plaintiff is entitled *480to a judgment as a matter of law; and, especially, in the light of Zschernig v. Miller, 36 L. W. 4120 (1/16/68), decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
“The Affidavit of John R. Vintilla is attached hereto in support of this motion."

 The “relief demanded in the complaint” included:
“That [the District Court] issue a permanent injunction forever restraining and enjoining the defendants and each of them, their agents and employees, from denying plaintiff's, and others similarly situated the right to their distributive shares from decedents’ estates, and to other funds to which they may be entitled; that the defendants, and each of them, their agents, and employees, be ordered and directed to take such action as shall be necessary to deliver the distributive shares and other funds which are due and owing to and being withheld from these plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
“That pending the final hearing and determination of this complaint upon its merits, the Court issue a preliminary injunction, restraining the defendants and each of them, their agents, and employees, from denying the plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, the right to their distributive shares and other funds to which they may be entitled.” (Emphasis added.)

 Switzerland Assn, involved an action for unfair competition under the federal trademark laws, 60 Stat. 427, 15 U. S. C. § 1051 et seq. The sole claim was that defendant’s actions in selling cheese labeled as “imported Swiss cheese” which had been imported into the United States from a country other than Switzerland were illegal under the trademark laws. The defense was that “imported Swiss cheese” had come to have an accepted meaning in the trade of Swiss cheese that had been imported from any country. The District Court found that the meaning in the trade of "imported Swiss cheese” was an issue of fact as to which there was a genuine dispute, and therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
The request for injunctive relief therefore had to await a jury trial on the facts.