Court Opinion

ID: 9424362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:11:24.24091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:49.960536
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hablan,
dissenting.-
In my view this case is ■ another instance in which the pressure of an overcrowded docket has led the Court to deal summarily with an issue which, if deserving of our attention at all, is deserving of full-dress treatment. Cf. United States v. Maryland Savings-Share Insurance Corp., ante, p. 4; United States v. Chicago, ante, p. 8. Moreover, the Court disposes of the case despite the opaqueness of the record and the uncertainty with regard to relevant California law.
Under the terms of respondent Frederick’s employment, his employer credited him with one day’s vacation pay for each month’s work.1 From September 15/ the date of bankruptcy, to December 23, the beginning of the shutdown and the enforced “vacation,” Mr. Frederick presumably became entitled to a little over three days’ pay. The same amount would have accrued to a person starting work on the date of bankruptcy with no debts or assets, the paradigm of “an unencumbered fresh start.” Indeed, the order not only permitted Mr. Frederick a fresh start; it gave him a head start, to the extent *22of half a day’s pay.2 Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U. S. 375 (1966), and Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U. S. 234 (1934), therefore tend to support, the position of the trustee rather than “compel a decision for the bankrupt.” Ante, p. 20. However, respondents can muster forceful arguments in their support, even on the assumption that the accrued vacation pay was subject to the claims of creditors — a point of California law which the court below found it unnecessary to decide.
Since the question tendered for review is close and has split the courts of appeals, I would set the case for argument.

 While neither the stipulated facts nor the opinions below reveal the rate of accrual of vacation pay, I take as true the uncontested representation in Mr. Frederick’s petition for review of the referee’s order.

 The case of respondent Harris is similar, but it is complicated by the fact that he could have chosen to forgo his vacation. As he observed in his petition to review the turnover order, the record is silent on whether such a choice would have wiped out his accrued vacation time and left nothing for him to turn over.