Sawyer v. United States Steel Co.
Decision Date | 03 May 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 11404-11413.,11404-11413. |
Citation | 197 F.2d 582 |
Parties | SAWYER v. UNITED STATES STEEL CO. et al. and nine other cases. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Holmes Baldridge, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, and Acting Attorney General Perlman, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Howard C. Westwood, Washington, D. C., for appellee United States Steel Company in Nos. 11,404-5. John Lord O'Brian and Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee in Nos. 11,404-5.
Bruce Bromley, New York City, of the bar of the Supreme Court of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellee Bethlehem Steel Company, et al., in No. 11,406. E. Fontaine Broun, and Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee in No. 11,406.
Thomas F. Patton, Cleveland, Ohio, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellee Republic Steel Corporation in Nos. 11,407-8.
Edmund L. Jones, Howard Boyd and Stanley L. Temko, all of Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee in Nos. 11,407-8.
John C. Bane, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellee Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation in No. 11,409. Sturgis Warner and Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee in No. 11,409.
John J. Wilson and John C. Gall, Washington, D. C., for appellees Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and Youngstown Metal Products Company in Nos. 11,410-11. Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees in Nos. 11,410-11.
J. C. Peacock, Washington, D. C., for appellee E. J. Lavino and Company in No. 11,412. Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee in No. 11,412.
Joseph P. Tumulty, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellees Armco Steel Corporation and Sheffield Steel Corporation in No. 11,413. Stanley L. Temko, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees in No. 11,413.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON, CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER, PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR, BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Granted May 3, 1952. See 72 S.Ct. 775.
The order entered by this court on April 30, 1952, was designed, as it recited, to preserve the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and of this court over the controversies here presented, pending appeal.
The District Court thought that there was "utter and complete lack of authoritative support" for the Government's position, and that the steel companies would suffer irreparable injury by any continuance of Government possession of the mills. 103 F.Supp. 569, 576
The Supreme Court said as long ago as 1871:
United States v. Russell, 1871, 13 Wall. 623, 627-628, 20 L.Ed. 474.
Only last year the Supreme Court held that "the United States became liable under the Constitution to pay just compensation" for a taking under circumstances closely parallel to those of the present case. United States v. Pee Wee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114, 117, 71 S.Ct. 670, 95 L.Ed. 809.
In the case before us the Chief Executive took possession of the steel plants as President and as Commander-in-Chief. When that action was challenged, his delegated representative — the Secretary of Commerce — submitted to the court, in the form of affidavits of the Secretary of Defense and other officials primarily responsible for the national security, the evidence which they said "fully proved" the emergency.
Under these circumstances, the cases we have cited, and many others, indicate there is at least a serious question as to the correctness of the view of the District Court to which we have referred.
The Supreme Court has said an appellate court is empowered "to prevent irreparable injury to the parties or to the public resulting from the premature enforcement of a determination which may later be found to have been wrong." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Com'n, 316 U.S. 4, 9, 62 S.Ct. 875, 880, 86 L.Ed. 1229. (Emphasis added.) See also Virginian...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Youngstown Sheet Tube Co v. Sawyer Sawyer v. Youngstown Sheet Tube Co
...authority of Executive Order No. 10340.' 103 F.Supp. 569. On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. 197 F.2d 582. Deeming it best that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May......
-
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Kahn
...the Secretary from enforcing it. 103 F.Supp. 569, 573-77 (D.D.C.1952). This court stayed the injunction. 90 U.S.App.D.C. 416, 418-19, 197 F.2d 582, 584-85 (1952) (en banc). On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. 343 U.S. at 589, 72 S.Ct. Justice Black'......
-
Cab Operating Corp. v. City of New York
...Cotonniere Establissements Boussac v. Alexander's Department Stores, Inc., 299 F.2d 33, 35 (2 Cir.1962); Sawyer v. United States Steel Co., 90 U.S.App.D.C. 416, 197 F.2d 582, 584 (1952), aff'd, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. Moreover, the public interest is heavily involved and courts......
-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. v. Tureaud
...mandatory injunction, which, under settled principles of law, is never issued preliminarily or in a doubtful case, Sawyer v. U. S. Steel Co., 90 U.S.App.D.C. 416, 197 F.2d 582; Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 569; O'Malley v. Chrysler Corp., 7 Cir., 160 F.2d 35; Kel......
-
Sssmokinnn': the Supreme Court Burns the Fda's Authority to Regulate Tobacco in Fda v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp
...Supp. at 577. 209. Id. at 573. 210. Id. 211. Id. 212. Id. 213. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 584 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 197 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1952)). 214. Id. at 584, 589. 215. Id. at 582, 585. 216. Id. at 585. 217. Id. at 586. 218. Id. 219. Id. at 587. 220. Id. 221. Id.......
-
Sssmokinnn': the Supreme Court Burns the Fda's Authority to Regulate Tobacco in Fda v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp
...Supp. at 577. 209. Id. at 573. 210. Id. 211. Id. 212. Id. 213. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 584 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 197 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1952)). 214. Id. at 584, 589. 215. Id. at 582, 585. 216. Id. at 585. 217. Id. at 586. 218. Id. 219. Id. at 587. 220. Id. 221. Id.......
-
Executive Power and Domestic Emergency: the Quest for Prerogative
...that only by 75 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 103 F. Supp. 569 (D.C.D.C., 1952). 76 Sawyer v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 197 F. 2d 582 (C.A.D.C., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 72 Sup. Ct. 863 (1952). 78 A check of leading newspaper editorial opinion, which does not prete......