SHENANDOAH VALLEY BROADCASTING, INC., ET AL.
v.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS
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 Court held that an appeal from an ancillary order fixing a license fee under a consent decree, where the dispute is between private parties, lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, not the Expediting Act.
Petitioners sought a license from ASCAP under a consent decree. ASCAP refused to fix a fee, leading petitioners to apply to the District Court. The Di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expediting Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In 1950 the District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an amended consent decree in a government Sherman Act suit requiring ASCAP inter alia to “grant to any user making written application therefor a non-exclusive license to perform all of the compositions in the ASCAP repertory” subject to a reasonable license fee. On request of petitioners for a license ASCAP refused to fix a fee and, as provided by the amended consent decree, this application was filed for an order to fix a reasonable fee. The District Court found that the consent decree did not require ASCAP to issue the type of license petitioners requested and, therefore, dismissed the application. 208 F. Supp.
896. The petitioners took an appeal to the Court of Appeals and also perfected a direct one to this Court under § 2 of the Expediting Act. 15 U.
S. C. § 29. We dismissed the appeal filed here for want of jurisdiction, 371 U. S. 540 (1963). Thereafter, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal perfected there, 317 F. 2d 90, on the ground that all appeals are “routed” to this Court by the Expediting Act and this petition brings that question here once again.
The dismissal that we heretofore entered was based on our unexpressed view that the appeal from an ancillary order of this type was not within the Expediting Act. Direct appeals to this Court are authorized by that Act only from final judgments where the United States is a complainant. The purpose of the Act is to expedite litigation of “great and general importance” where the Government is the aggrieved party. See 36 Cong. Rec. 1679 (1903). The controversy which is disposed of by the District Court’s order is entirely between private parties and is outside the mainstream of the litigation in which the Government is directly concerned. Compare Terminal R. R. Assn. v. United States, 266 U. S. 17; Aluminum Co. of America v. United States, 302 U. S.
230. In these circumstances, and the order being final rather than interlocutory, we believe that the appeal does lie under 28 U.
S. C. § 1291. The petition is therefore granted and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration on its merits.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black acquiesces in the Court’s judgment because of the holding in the prior appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1972)…o Group, Ltd. v. United States, Misc. No. 3261 (June 25, 1968). 405 U. S. 986 (1972). We had originally denied certiorari, 404 U. S.941 (1971). Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85-919, 72 Stat. 1770. See also Shenandoah Valley Broadcasting v. ASCAP, 375 U. S. 39, 40 (1963), modified, 375 U. S. 994 (1964). Section 1 of the Expediting Act, 15 U. S. C. §28, requires that a three-judge district court be convened to hear any Governitíent civil antitrust case that the Attorney General certifies to be of “general…1 / 2
-
Burton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 335 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1964)…of good judicial administration in the husbanding of limited judicial manpower, extraordinary resourcefulness and adaptation is called for in the disposition of all cases, both civil and criminal. Shenandoah Valley Broadcasting, Inc. v. ASCAP, 1963, 375 U.S. 39, 84 S.Ct. 8, 11 L.Ed.2d 8, opinion modified and rehearing granted in part, 1964, 375 U.S. 994, 84 S.Ct. 627, 11 L.Ed.2d 467, 468 (dissenting opinion); Bartone v. United States, 1963, 375 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 21, 11 L.Ed.2d 11; Benson v. United States,…
-
Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States, 480 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1973)…rust action, if a dispute arises which is entirely between private parties and does not concern the Government, then the Expediting Act has been held not to [*297] bar an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Shenandoah Valley Broadcasting, Inc. v. ASCAP, 375 U.S. 39, 40, 84 S.Ct. 8, 11 L.Ed.2d 8 (1963); Standard Fruit & S. S. Co. v. United Fruit Co., 393 U.S. 406, 89 S.Ct. 684, 21 L.Ed.2d 634 (1969) (per curiam — See United States v. Standard Fruit & S. S. Co., 410 F. 2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 8…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terminal R.R. Ass'n of ST. Louis v. United States, 266 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1924)
- Aluminum Co. of Am. v. United States, 302 U.S. 230 (U.S. 1937)
- United States v. Am. Soc'y OF Composers, 317 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1963)
- Shenandoah Valley Broad., Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, 371 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1963)