Jump to content

Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States

From Wikisource
Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States (1972)
Syllabus
4678988Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States — Syllabus1972
Court Documents
Dissenting Opinions
Douglas
Stewart

Supreme Court of the United States

409 U.S. 151

Tidewater Oil Co.  v.  United States et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No. 71-366.  Argued: October 11, 1972 --- Decided: December 6, 1972

The Expediting Act, providing that in a civil antitrust action brought by the United States in a federal district court an appeal from that court's final judgment will lie only to this Court, lodged exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such actions in this Court and thus bars the courts of appeals from asserting jurisdiction over interlocutory orders covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), as well as over other interlocutory orders specified in § 1292 (a). The legislative history of those provisions contains no indication of a congressional intent to impair the original exclusivity of this Court's jurisdiction under the Expediting Act. Pp. 154-174.

Affirmed.


MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 174. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 174. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, which REHNQUIST, J., joined, and DOUGLAS, J., joined in part, post, p. 178.


Moses Lasky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was C. Lansing Hays, Jr.

A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., argued the cause for the United States pro hac vice. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Kauper.