Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer Sawyer v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
| Decision Date | 03 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 744,745,s. 744 |
| Citation | 96 L.Ed. 1344,72 S.Ct. 775,343 U.S. 937 |
| Parties | The YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY et al., petitioners, v. Charles SAWYER. Charles SAWYER, Secretary of Commerce, petitioner, v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John C. Gall and John J. Wilson, for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al.
Messrs. Luther Day, Edmund L. Jones, Howard Boyd, John C. Gall and T. F. Patton, for Republic Steel Corp.
Messrs. Charles H. Tuttle and Joseph P. Tumulty, Jr., for Armco Steel Corp., et al.
Messrs. Bruce Bromley and E. Fontaine Broun, for Bethlehem Steel Co., et al.
Messrs. John C. Bane, Jr., H. Parker Sharp and Sturgis Warner, for Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Messrs. John W. Davis, Theodore Kiendl, John Lord O'Brian, Roger M. Blough, Porter R. Chandler and Howard C. Westwood, for United States Steel Co.
Messrs. Randolph W. Childs, Edgar S. McKaig and James Craig Peacock, for E. J. Lavino & Co.
Solicitor General Perlman, for Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce.
Messrs. Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris, as amicus curiae, for United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O.
On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Page 937-Continued.
Certiorari granted.
The order of the District Court entered April 30, 1952, is hereby stayed pending disposition of these cases by this Court. It is further ordered, as a provision of this stay, that Charles S. Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce (respondent in No. 744 and petitioner in No. 745) take no action to change any term or condition of employment while this stay is in effect unless such change is mutually agreed upon by the steel companies (petitioners in No. 744 and respondents in No. 745) and the bargaining representatives of the employees.
The cases are assigned for argument on Monday, May 12, next.
The first question before this Court is that presented by the petitions for a writ of certiorari by-passing the Court of Appeals. The constitutional issue which is the subject of the appeal deserves for its solution all of the wisdom that our judicial process makes available. The need for soundness in the result outweighs the need for speed in reaching it. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recycling & Salvage Corp., Matter of
......Inc.; Golden Gate Carting Company, Inc.; William Major; . Christopher Yonclas and ......
- State v. Ostroski
- Parks v. Bourbeau
-
Youngstown Sheet Tube Co v. Sawyer Sawyer v. Youngstown Sheet Tube Co
...that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May 12. 343 U.S. 937, 72 S.Ct. 775. Two crucial issues have developed: First. Should final determination of the constitutional validity of the President's order be made......
-
The World War II German saboteurs' case and writs of certiorari before judgment by the Court of Appeals: a tale of nunc pro tunc jurisdiction.
...of the Supreme Court. A Study in the Federal Judicial System 262 n.24 (Macmillan, 1928). (45.) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 937, 938 (1952). When the case was heard on the merits, however, Justice Frankfurter concurred in the Court's decision, which held that the Pres......