Court Opinion

ID: 9422412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:02:29.927393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:36.517930
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
Certiorari was granted in this case because it was thought that the legal principles underlying one aspect of the decision below were in conflict with those applied by the Second Circuit in Grillea v. United States, 232 F. 2d 919.
The Court, however, does not resolve that conflict, nor does it decide any other question of law not already established by its past decisions. Instead, the judgment below is reversed meiely because this Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals’ factual estimate of the case.
*704Had the issue which the Court decides been the only-question tendered by the petition for certiorari, the case could not well have been regarded as one for review by this Court. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, 559 (dissenting opinions). To reverse it now on what is essentially only an evidentiary ground is, in my view, an improvident use of the certiorari power: the Court has done no more than “to substitute its views” for those of the Court of Appeals on purely factual issues, reached upon a fair assessment of the trial record. 352 U. S., at 562-563. Respecting the legal issues which this Court does not decide, I think that the Court of Appeals was plainly correct in deciding them as it did.
I would affirm.