UNITED STATES ET AL.
v.
ANCHOR COAL CO. ET AL.; BARTON COAL CO. ET AL. V. SAME; PITTSBURGH OPERATORS' LAKE RATE COMMITTEE ET AL. V. SAME; AND BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. ET AL. V. SAME

U.S. | 1929-03-05
Nos. 355; No. 356; No. 357; No. 358
279 U.S. 812 Supreme Court of the United States (1929) Caution
Also reported at: 73 L. Ed. 971 · 49 S. Ct. 262 · 1929 U.S. LEXIS 77 · SCDB 1928-129
Cited by 54 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court decree and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the complaint because the underlying dispute had become moot and no longer presented a justiciable controversy. The decision established that when the merits of a case become moot during appellate proceedings, the Court will reverse and remand rather than merely dismiss the appeal, so that the injunction in place during litigation is properly disposed of.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

These appeals have been fully argued and considered, but in the present situation we find that they present moot issues and that further proceedings upon the merits can neither be had here nor in the court of first instance. To dismiss the appeals would leave the injunction in force, at least apparently so, notwithstanding that the basis therefor has disappeared. Our action must, therefore, dispose of the cause, not merely of the appellate proceedings which brought it here. The practice now established by this Court under similar conditions and circumstances is to reverse the deciee below and remand the cause with directions to dismiss the bill. The order will be, therefore, that the decree is reversed with directions to the District Court to dismiss the bill of complaint without costs, because the controversy involved has become moot and, therefore, is no longer a subject appropriate for judicial action. United States v. Hamburg American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470; Board of Public Utility Comm’rs v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528, 535; Norwegian Co. v. Tariff Comm’n, 274 U. S. 106, 112. Mr. Justice Sanford took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.

Mr. Luther M. Walter, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Daniel W. Knowlton was on the brief, for appellants United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.

Messrs. Ernest S. Ballard and August G. Guthéim, with whom Mr. Frank E. Harkness was on the brief, for 'appellants Barton Coal Company and Pittsburgh Operators’ Lake Rate Committee .et al.

Mr. Henry Wolf Biklé, with whom Messrs. Clyde Brown, William N. King, Andrew P. Martin, Frederic D. McKenney, Atlee Pomerene, James Stilwell, and Charleé R. Webber were on the brief, for appellants Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company et al.

Messrs. John W. Davis and J. V. Norman, with whom Messrs. E. L. Greever, G. F. Graham, and Robert E. Quirk were on the brief, for appellees Anchor Coal Company et al.

Mr. C. R. Hillyer for appellees Whiting-Plover Paper Company et al.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1942)
    …as to mootness in United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., supra, is to be regarded as based on the constitutional provision. See Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814. See Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293; Chandler v. Wise, 307 U.S. 474, 477, 478, 59 S.Ct. 992, 83 L.Ed. 1407. Dakota County v. Glidden, 113…
  • Greenwood Cnty. v. Duke Power Co., 81 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1936)
    …er that it may give consideration to some phase of the case which it has overlooked or may take into consideration matters which have occurred since the taking of the appeal, is too clear for discussion. . See U. S. v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814; Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, 275 U.S. 164, 171, 172, 48 S.Ct. 66, 72 L.Ed. 218; Wyant v. Caldwell (C.C.A.4th) 67 F.(2d) 374; Fine-frock v. Kenova Mine Car Co. (C.C.A…
  • Acheson v. Droesse, 197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
    …tz, 261 U.S. 216 [43 S.Ct. 263, 67 L.Ed. 620]; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528 [46 S.Ct. 600, 70 L.Ed. 1071]; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. Tariff Commission, 274 U.S. 106 [47 S.Ct. 499, 71 L.Ed. 949]; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812 [49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971]; Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U.S. 249 [50 S.Ct. 315, 74 L.Ed. 832]; Hargis v. Bradford, 283 U.S. 781 [51 S.Ct. 342, 75 L.Ed. 1411]; Mahan v. Hume, 287 U.S. 575 [53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505]; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Macmi…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw