GLIDDEN COMPANY
v.
ZDANOK ET AL.
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.
The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari limited to whether the participation of a Court of Claims judge on a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated the court's judgment, while denying certiorari on all other issues presented. The Court also certified to the Attorney General a constitutional question regarding the constitutionality of the Act of July 28, 1953, which authorized judges from the Court of Claims to sit on other courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Motions of California Manufacturers Association; National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Inc.; National Association of Margarine Manufacturers; Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc.; American Spice Trade Association; Georgia State Chamber of Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio; and Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to question (d) presented by the petition, which reads as follows:
“(d) Does participation by a Court of Claims judge vitiate the judgment of the Court of Appeals?”
In all other respects the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403, the Court hereby certifies to the Attorney General that there is drawn in question in this case the constitutionality of the Act of July 28, 1953, 67 Stat. 226 (28 U. S. C. § 171). Briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by Francis M. Shea and Richard T. Conway for the Judges of the United States Court of Claims, and by Edward C. First, Jr. and Gilbert Nurick for the Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1962)…ld by this Court last Term, 366 U. S. 712; we are now asked to review the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of his conviction. Because of the significance of the “designation” issue for the federal judicial system, we granted certiorari in the two cases, 368 U. S. 814, 815, limited to the question whether the judgment in either was vitiated by the respective participation of the judges named.4 The claim advanced by the petitioners, that they were denied the protection of judges with tenure and compensation guara…1 / 2
-
Zdanok v. The Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir. 1964)…al to recognize that entitlement; we remanded the case to the District Court to determine what these damages were. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review our decision save as to the legality of participation therein by a judge of the Court of Claims, 368 U.S. 814, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961), and its approval of such participation, 370 U.S. 530, 82 S. Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962), left our ruling in effect. There had also been brought in the Supreme Court for New York County an action against Glidden…1 / 2
-
Application of Rudolf Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927 (C.C.P.A. 1967)…n the companion case. He was designated to preside over a criminal trial in the District Court of the District of Columbia and the validity of this designation was questioned in the Court of Appeals, D.C. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court (368 U.S. 814, 815, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22) limited to the question “whether the judgment in either was vitiated by the respective participation” of the named judges. 370 U.S. at 533, 82 S.Ct. at 1463. The Supreme Court’s opinion best explains and sets forth t…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence