80 S.Ct. 16 (1959), Appalachian Power Co. v. American Institute of C.p.a.

Citation80 S.Ct. 16, 4 L.Ed.2d 30
Party NameAPPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, Ohio Power Company and Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, L.H. Penney, William W. Werntz and Carman G. Blough.
Case DateJuly 07, 1959
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 16

80 S.Ct. 16 (1959)

4 L.Ed.2d 30

APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, Ohio Power Company and Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Petitioners,

v.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, L.H. Penney, William W. Werntz and Carman G. Blough.

United States Supreme Court.

July 7, 1959

OPINION

Page 17

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Circuit Justice (temporarily assigned).

The petitioners apply for an order (1) staying the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on its judgment of June 17, 1959, 268 F.2d 844, affirming a summary judgment for respondents entered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 177 F.Supp. 345, and (2) restraining the respondents, pending the final determination of this action by this Court, from distributing to the members of the respondent American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or to any other members of the accounting profession a proposed letter dated April 15, 1959, or any other communication, to the effect that the respondent American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or its Committee on Accounting Procedure is of the opinion or recommends that a deferred tax account set up in recognition of the deferral of income taxes should not be credited to earned surplus or to any other account included in the stockholders' equity section of the balance sheet.

The petitioners, public utility companies which account for deferred taxes in the stockholders equity section of their balance sheets, brought this diversity suit in the District Court. They sought, in addition to other relief, an injunction against respondents promulgating or distributing said letter except upon compliance with certain specified procedures. An interim restraint was granted pending hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. Respondents made a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Affidavits were filed by both sides. The District Court heard the motions together, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and, treating the motion to dismiss, since affidavits of both sides were filed, as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entered summary judgment for the respondents. The District Court found that the letter of April 15 reflected the Committee's 'honest opinions,' that it was not 'false or fraudulent' and...

To continue reading

Request your trial