Joseph Walters v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

me and inaccurate banc review seems WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Joseph add incomplete, I think it desirable rep- my own. What follows statement of my views. resents own LINES, INC., MOORE-McCORMACK Defendant-Appellee. first Since was Inin 27473. re Docket Circuit in 1956 this No. 15. Tankers, Corp., Lake Appeals United States Court of aff’d Circuit. Second (1957), members Rehearing In Banc Petition for is- have been those this court alert to Oct. Submitted 1962. might require in and cases which sues 14, 1963. Decided Jan. become banc consideration. We have problems created sensitive to the added the number of active the increase in judges greatly nine, in- which has possibility creased that the may reflect the view of minority the court. members summary the 30 A cases which (see appendix court has heard opinion) demonstrates that generalization “prosecu- CLARK’s prison tors and ly officials traditional- have call, important property had first and given consideration,” careful Kaye, City, L. New York Irvin practically while claims “seamen’s have brief, plaintiff-appellant. hearing” no of in banc dis- chance at all the actual record. torts LUMBARD, Judge, and Before MOORE, CLARK, WATERMAN, than one-third our 30 in banc More KAUFMAN, FRIENDLY, SMITH, criminal have been in field of Judges. MARSHALL, Circuit HAYS involved federal law—5 criminal law1 possible and 6 involved review of or in prosecut state criminal terference with Judge. LUMBARD, Chief Approximately another one- ions.2 judges having deny the voted to Six third, cases, or involved the con plaintiff-appellant’s petition for in banc statutes,3 an ad struction of federal of his dis- reconsideration from questions 3 have involved of fed ditional complaint of his after a missal procedure.4 remaining Of eral cases, had of this court voted to affirm the seamen,5 involved 3 have judgment below, we decline consider others were concerned with the full faith Usually in banc. we enter an Constitution, clause and credit merely judges order which dissenting, those engage attention, third will attention court’s a the and to of those cases which beyond appear unworthy being judges. carried of all nine of panel. the decision of a for important criterion The most hearing granting whether I do not CLARK’s understand in is an banc likely in affect statement that of our to clarification involves the case an issue disagreement, procedure provided a many banc is not other cases.10 Mere disagreement, consideration of the is- with the of “the nature or likelihood of I un- generally sue” involved panel decision, in these cases. As been not has review, purpose regarded the in a derstand banc for as sufficient reason of question precise although our hearing, the which controls is natur- further that adopt given ally decision extraordinary to whether or not some one factor is many which weight procedure whether the in our In votes. presents dissenting judge an issue sufficient con- opposed in banc of an has enough may litigants feeling cern to are or who that the because of the become in so question involved similar situations of all did not warrant the time of judges. judges that the Conversely, even-handed administration the justice will be a decision benefited their voted refer to the whole court to by the entire “human ele- majority court. The opinions of oth- own or those agreed. ment” judges they on which CLARK focuses er with which is, course, every case, present of in overwhelming majority of cases The whether in not. But considered banc or them- in do not lend considered the it is not basis on which in banc re- giving being categorized as selves to been, be, granted. view has or should prison “prosecutors and call” to “first involving “important simple as officials” or fact is that most seamen’s Labelling legal present principle; of this kind property issues.” no issue of scarcely controlling appropriate usually questions for the vast ma- is jority the involve us, which accepted principles before involve of cases the to amalgam private public Here, judges liti- an the facts. the vote of six interests, general questions gants’ deny petition to the means in that Judg- light particular law, fact. pertinent issues of the of all the considera- anyone else, they es, questions present- see all cases more than feel tions that the no light; important enough to one us the same what ed are not in to warrant merit full court consideration further must, consideration. we seems While all reason, do, respect to another will for one and consider the entirely different demand on full of our views brethren to the as issues (Case 2), might previous No. was heard 10. Thus Schaefer exist as our inter- important pretations” “an because it raised statutes. the narcotic In practice procedure going (Case 16), Brown Bullock No. the is- beyond particular of this the fortunes was sue considered be “novel and of McWeeney (Case 14), private importance.” public In No. well case.” as referring joined (Case members three In Winston 20), United States No. granting “since similar arise for in banc the reason for in banc was frequently importance in this trials circuit. stated to of the issue *” * * Apuzzo (Case 3), No. fact and the that decision was operative factor that was the with said “potential conflict decisions two other appeals importance the administra courts of several district law,” Cir., (Case 25), F. In No. of the criminal Foti courts. im- (Case consequences 13), portant In Goi'i No. it was 2d 416. presented Fitzgerald noted. In “the case belief important (Case 22), problem general Lines Co. No. to the admin con- justice circuit.” recent dictum and In flict istration con- (Case 15), stantly recurring problem No. it was im nature of the Santore questions portance of the raised in the district courts were the in the reasons granting of the narcotic laws. in banc. 2 In .administration (Case 24), v. Jones No. up any clear was “to confusion gaining agreement. importance U. denied compelling Cert. are of such which regu- justify departure from ab- can panel procedure, us lar none responsibility determine dicate his Consultants, Rayon 8. Mueller v. question in each for himself Cir., 2 271 November Decided 591. which arises. 12, ap- 1959. Involved in which time peal from No district court decision. APPENDIX Supreme Court action. Cir., Corp., 2 1. In re Lake Tankers Sperry 9. Corp. Bell Tel. Rand v. August 21, 1956. 235 F.2d 783. Decided Lab., Inc., Cir., 2 F.2d 29. Decided 272 admiralty. Aff’d Involved limitation in 12, November Involved availa- 1959. 147, 1269, 354 77 S.Ct. U.S. bility interlocutory appeal. No Su- (1957). 1246 preme Court action. Brewing Co. v. 2. &F. M. Schaefer Pugach Cir., 10. Dollinger, v. 2 277 States, Cir., 236 F.2d 889. United 2 April 14, F.2d 739. 1960. In- Decided September 12, Involved 1956. Decided power enjoin volved of federal court to district within which from time divulging wiretap state officials from evi- 227, decision. U.S. 78 S. court Rev’d 356 dence in state trials. Aff’d criminal 365 674, (1958). 2 L.Ed.2d 721 Ct. 458, 650, U.S. 81 5 L.Ed.2d 678 Cir., Apuzzo, 2 3. United States v. (1961). May 28, 245 F.2d 416. 1957. Decided propriety Levine, Cir., reference to the 11. Involved O’Rourke v. 2 277 prior April 14, defendant’s record in criminal F.2d 739. Decided In- 1960. 831, Pugach question Cert. U.S. (Case case. denied 355 78 S.Ct. volved same 45, (1957). 10). Supreme L.Ed.2d 2 43 No. No Court action. United ex v. Mar- 4. rel. Roosa Coppola, Cir., 12. United States tin, Decided Au- 247 F.2d 659. May 20, 281 F.2d 340. Decided 1960. gust 16, question 1957. Involved wheth- cooperation Involved state-federal and1 remedies had been exhausted. er state Mallory 762, rule. Aff’d 365 U.S. Supreme No Court action. 884, (1961). L.Ed.2d 79 United rel. States ex Marcial v. 5. Gori, Cir., 13. United States v. Fay, 2 247 F.2d 662. Decided Au July 22, F.2d 43. Decided 1960. In- 16, gust pover 1957. effect of Involved jeopardy volved attachment of in case ty requirement of exhaustion of on state 364, of mistrial. Aff’d 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. de remedies counsel. Cert. 1523, (1961). 6 L.Ed.2d 901 915, 342, nied U.S. L. McWeeney York, 14. New N. H. (1958). Ed.2d R., Cir., & H. R. 282 F.2d 34. Decided American-Foreign Corp. 6. S. S. July 29, Involved 1960. refusal of court States, charge regarding non-taxable nature July 28, ap Decided 1958. Involved case, award in F. E. A. L. and also- plicable statute of limitations in suit regarding plaintiff’s taxes on future income. recovery overpayments of char rt. denied 364 Ce 81 S. ter hire made to Maritime Commission. (1960). Ct. L.Ed.2d 93 and remanded on Vacated another Santore, 15. United States v. ground, 51. Decided November (1960). Reheard in banc. presump Involved 1960. May 26, 1961, Cir., on Decided 291 F. knowledge illegal importa tion of Cert. denied 368 2d 598. prosecution. in narcotics Cert. de (1961). 7 L.Ed.2d 92 S. Ct. nied 5 L.Ed. Reardon v. 7. California Tanker (1961). Cir., 260 F.2d 369. Decided November Bullock, Cir., 1958. Involved 16. effect Jones Brown v. 294 F. payment recovery September under collective bar- 2d 415. Decided 1961. In- Serv., jurisdiction Immigration 25. Foti v. & Nat. federal existence volved September Su- Company Act. No 308 F.2d Decided 779. under Investment jurisdiction Involved preme action. discretionary Attor review orders Bakeries, Local Inc. v. Drake suspending ney withholding or General September Decided 294 F.2d 399. deportation. Cert. arbitrability of labor Involved (1963). 254, 82 S.Ct.

dispute. Aff’d 370 U.S. Ng Immigration & Yen Nat. Serv., Sep- 308 F.2d 796. Decided Reid ex rel. tember 1962. Involved same Richmond, 83. Decided (Case 25). as Foti No No. alleged September 1961. Involved Court action. rights in a state of constitutional denial 27. denied 368 Pearson v. Northeast Airlines conviction. Cert. murder Inc., L.Ed.2d 344 553. Decided F.2d No 8, 1962. constitution (1961). vember Involves ality of refusal court in New a federal Royal S. S. 19. Puddu Netherlands apply recovery ap York to limitation May Co., 2 Decided F.2d 752. plicable wrongful Massachusetts death judge 15, 1962. Involved a verdict for statute. Cert. denied Northeast Air in action for unseaworthiness defendant Pearson, (1963). Inc. lines denied, maritime tort. Cert. 371 U. (1962). City 28. Atlantic Electric Co. v. Gen- al., Electric Co. et 236. eral F.2d De- States, Cir., 20. Winston v. United cided December 1962. Involves con- 253. F.2d Decided June 1962. provisions struction limitation right prisoner to sue Involved under respect to civil suits under the antitrust granted, Tort Claims Act. Federal Cert. laws. (1962). Optical 29. Farrand Co. v. United Pending. Ordered November States. 21. Muniz v. United States. Cir.,-F.2d-. 30, 1962, 2 Involves 285. F.2d Decided June 1962. jurisdiction district court cei’- question (Case same Involved as Winston patents by for the use of tain suits granted 20). Cert. No. government. (1962). 9 L.Ed.2d 229 ex rel. Bloeth 30. Fitzgerald v. United 22. States Lines Denno, 2 F.2d 364. Decided Co., 2 306 F.2d 461. Decided June alleged January 25,1963. Involves denial jury Involved rights in a state murder constitutional for maintenance and cure. claim Cert. conviction. granted 9 L. (1962). Ed.2d Judge (dissenting). CLARK, Circuit Capital S.E.C. Gains Research denying from the order I dissent Bureau, De rehearing in banc. In petition for a view July Involved whether cided procedure, of our in banc anomalies of the of the Investment Advisers a violation increasing in an number of illustrated (2) 206(1) and was so §§ Act of crowning is a which this ex- preliminary injunction. justify a as to clear desirable, ample, if not it seems neces- rt. S. Ce sary, point out where we seem to have 550, L.Ed.2d 538 Ct. tending. to be And I arrived believe Jones, Cir., trend cases show a clear toward our August 17, for, prejudicial 1962. In- and of Decided denial against, alios, possession of inter constructive nar- discrimination volved Jones increasing plaintiffs Court action. which is cotics. No our assumes multiply. practice just situation lower courts.1 In our it urgency way. here we note that does not when work more out In view judges dis- has shown have, of four load of minimum business we en- tirely impracticable every and that content with the to hear more, feeling may anyone since well be number so desires that course. approv- judges are on record Hence there two comes an inevitable minority decision, of choice. it. Thus a It is here record that on the below, pointed out character as doubtful increasingly discriminatory attitude the law of Cir- frozen in as becomes appears. generalize, To it is clear that cuit. prosecutors prison officials have traditionally call,2 important had first theory, proceedings banc should In given property issues are careful con- whereby multi-judge handy means hand, theory sideration.3 On the seamen’s other resolves differences practically front bar a united no chance at all claims Martin, problems Roosa v. 1. For discussion of the (denial corpus affirmed); sits of habeas U. court -which bar faced Fay, Llewellyn, panels, Common S. ex Marcial v. F. The Appeals rel. see 662, Fay Deciding 813- 2d Marcial, cert. denied S. rel. v. U. ex 342, Tradition: Law 915, Note, 2 En Banc Proce 355 U.S. 78 S.Ct. See 317 Appeals, (denial corpus of of habeas Courts re dure in the Federal hearing Maris, below) ; (1962); versed for United 220 States 111 U. of Pa.L.Rev. Banc, Jones, Cir., (conviction Hearing Rehearing v. 2 308 F.2d 26 Cases and reversed) ; Pugach Dollinger, Cir., v. 14 2 F.R.D. 91. 739, 458, 277 F.2d affirmed 365 U.S. 81 panel following a decision 2. In cases 650, 678, S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d and O’Rourke reversing va conviction was a criminal Levine, Cir., (each v. firming 2 277 F.2d 739 af original judgment cated, below and the injunc the trial denial court’s of Coppola, 2 States v. restored. United against wiretap tion use of evidence in Coppola 340, Cir., v. F.2d affirmed 281 trials, state criminal earlier de cf. 762, States, 81 S.Ct. 365 U.S. United 884, granting stay, Pugach cision. linger, Dol v. Gori, 79; v. 6 L.Ed.2d United States Cir., 503). 2 275 F.2d In S.U. 43, Cir., v. affirmed Gori 2 282 F.2d Smith, Cir., ex rel. Brown v. 2 306 F.2d 364, States, 81 S.Ct. United 1523, 367 608, application 596, of the relator was 901; L.Ed.2d United States v. 6 by divided vote. In denied gration Foti v. Immi (in part Santore, Cir., 51 2 290 F.2d Service, and Naturalization 2 only), v. United cert. denied Santore Cir., 779, granted 308 F.2d cert. 371 U.S. States, 745, 834, 365 U.S. 81 5 L. S.Ct. 947, 503, 496, Ng 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d and Rich Ed.2d 743. mond, In U. S. ex rel. Reid v. Immigration Yen v. and Naturalization 83, Cir., 2 295 F.2d denied cert. Service, Cir., 796, 2 308 F.2d the court or 948, 390, 368 U.S. 82 7 L.Ed.2d hearing by dered in banc then divided and 344, in bane ordered petitions by vote dismissed for review grant corpus. and reversed habeas grounds jurisdiction. aliens on of lack of Denno, Bloeth v. S. ex rel. also U. See following important property 3. In eas Cir., v. In Winston Unit 2 313 applications hearings for in banc es granted, 253, were Cir., States, Muniz F.2d Cir., and 2 305 ed though 285, the decisions were ulti States, F.2d 2 305 v. United mately Muniz, affirmed substance: In re Lake granted 371 v. United cert. States Cir., Corp., 783, 2 292, 235 F.2d 919, Tankers af L.Ed.2d 9 83 S.Ct. U.S. 229, Corp. Henn, hearings granted Lake Tankers v. firmed were in banc 147, 1269, 1246; though application, government’s 77 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. American-Foreign on the Corp. finally S. S. reaf v. United were decisions grant States, Cir., 136, F.2d vacated cases firmed. There are no application fol v. accused. remanded American- of the In hearings Foreign Corp., 685, lowing S. in banc 1336, 1491, (in granted court or 4 L.Ed.2d initiative affirmed on the judges: American-Foreign majority major part), active S. S. 416, Cir., States, Cir., Apuzzo, Corp. 245 F.2d v. v. United F. States, Apuzzo 598, 895, v. United cert. denied 368 U.S. cert. denied 82 S. 45, 92; Rayon 2 L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. Mueller v. 355 U.S. 7 L.Ed.2d Ct. affirmed); (conviction' rel. ex U. S. though by jury, hearing,4 these cases of serious course including usually parties, of all moment most debated are now seriously injured plaintiff and his de- within the court.5 pendents. point fact, In further re- litigation one is of Jones area view of these ought of reasons a number for unusual, certiorari for most requests responsive to particularly part sought.6 First, is not even It is well known these for full court review. great involv- importance, widely professional often there is a cases of held view, apparently minority on the limitations shared serious Consultants, Inc., Cir., Co., F.2d 591 denied Salem v. U. S. Lines denied); Sperry Cir., (interlocutory 293 F.2d reversed on this issue Telephone Corp. Labora 370 U.S. v. Bell Rand (inter 672; tories, F.2d 29 verdict reinstated 2 304 F.2d McWeeney Rederi, locutory appeal denied); Wallenco, v. v. Nuzzo Stock A/S Co., holm, Sweden, 514; York, H. R. & 304 F.2d New N. H. York, N. and the denied New A F.2d cert. case. like McWeeney, was R. denied to affirm a H. & H. 870, Co. defendant’s deci 93; Brown sion Corp. below Pinto v. States Marine 415; Bullock, Cir., Del., Cir., Atlantic 294 F.2d 298 F.2d cert. Co., City Electric v. General denied 309 Electric Co. 7 L. grants Farrand also 236. See Ed.2d F.2d 847. Our lane -Cir., States, 2 Optical v. United seamen’s cases Co. are Reardon v. Cali Co., and now F.2d -, Nov. fornia ordered Tanker Airlines, pending; Northeast Pearson cert. denied California Tanker Co. applica (plaintiff’s Reardon, be 628; Fitzgerald in lane v. U. S. Airlines, Inc. restored), Northeast low Lines cert. granted Capital 726; 932, 307, C. v. Pearson, E.S. 371 S.Ct. U.S. 83 83 S.Ct. 9 Cir., Bureau, F.2d 269, involving 306 special prob 2 L.Ed.2d both Research Gains ap granted on only; (hearing lane in maintenance and lems as cure 606 plication original C., Royal de but E. of S. Puddu v. Netherlands S. S. also Co., granted reaffirmed), U. 752, 371 Cir., cert. 2 303 F.2d cert. denied cision 538; 550, 840, 67, L.Ed.2d 967, 9 83 83 S.Ct. 9 371 L.Ed.2d S. 50, pub Local v. Inc. in lane Bakeries where was voted after Drake 75 Confectionery Bakery protesting & dissent initial lished the de American Cir., AFL-CIO, International, majority nial, 2 but the reaffirmed without Workers reviewing (hearing lane in the evidence on the issue of 399 F.2d 294 panel union, deci the Bor other unseaworthiness. cases see on vacated, af below notes 5 and infra. decision 7 and sion 254, firmed), 82 S.Ct. affirmed 370 474; M. judicial The F. & 1346, during L.Ed.2d 8 the cases last 5. For other States, Brewing United recovery Co. v. denying Schaefer seamen’s ad term —in (heard in lane on Cir., supra— 236 F.2d cited in dition to those note dismissed), re Cir., Co., order v. Ezekiel Volusia S. S. see F. & Schaef 215; v. M. versed v. F.2d Richter Mathiasen’s Brewing Co., Industries, 356 U.S. Cir., er 297 F.2d Tanker 494; Hooper Hearings in lane Co., S. v. Terminal S. by in Matthies courts divided Cir., denied were which 296 F.2d 281. Cases went Co., Mfg. Seymour Carpals F.2d against v. trend Van this 361 U.S. Harvester, denied cert. American 297 F. S.S. 554; Ahern, Glenmore v. cert. denied U. S. Lines Co. v. Van 2d 525, 549, denied 276 F.2d cert. Carpals, Corp. Glen Financial 84; A. Tri-Continental v. C. Venezuelan Massa L.Ed.2d Navigacion, 4 L.Ed. more, 239; 298 F.2d Usiak Fabrics, 878; Inc. Barge Co., Cir., Pan Peter Tank New York Corp., F.2d Corp., 808; Textile Dixon v. Trinidad DeLima F.2d Corp. v. in Carrier as well 302 F.2d B., (on L. R. 311 F.2d 135 N. supra. Compare in the Nuzzo case in or what the higher probability upon it, we that the grounds possibly of distinction could be. or at least an at correct arrive a shall example This seems an extreme our of operable procedure. But the classifica- practice to consider each an case as by Chief is unin- the tion selected happening, isolated so that reversals of misleading. formative, if not He con- sig- reversals below are our held without upon entirely the nature centrates nificance.7 So as matter of a cold sta- overlooking case, the human issue in each element, tistics it follows that no matter er- how litigants by actual affected the ruling a roneous of ours on the debated according Classification to the result. may be, issue of seaworthiness its chanc- gets nowhere, issue us nature of the the slight, of es probably review reversal are agreement have reached no as to since we per well under 5 cent. important; note, for my which powerful example, my reason brothers’ reaction A final for full re- to problem my which the of view—a reason each one of unseaworthiness view colleagues presently adequate justifica- cases is has found the most in Jones important one before this court. It from time to for seems time in banc in Compagnie might 891; and Kermarec v. reversals include Palermo Other Transatlantique, 358 U.S. v. Luckenbach S. 355 U.S. Generale 550, vacating 3, reversing 557; Ferguson v. Moore-Mc Lines, my Cormack dissents in cases cited in 8. See notes supra. 515, reversing 4 and 5 by important regard all the even the as criteria hinted we must to me that Judge, impor by every more Chief such as number and one so viewed issue coming us, (Throughout am our dis I tance of the to judges. cases the active colleague tinguished to intent point evinces an omitting all reference as not in hearings all in seamen’s veto banc in counsel cases those numerous cases, simple most sought ob- since “The is fact proceedings without in banc single legal taining seamen’s cases no issue of a vote affirmative controlling principle; viewing questions im- usu judge.9) But in active pact ally great impor- application accepted involve the practice it is our principles Surely does is to the facts.” this tance observe—as quite banc in in error. The is one (a) able to secure who is not — quite important hearings (b) it law—and law— not. Thus indeed who is public has a a where there been refusal follow to learn that seems informative “accepted principles” jury of se- chance as to trial prosecutor excellent has an respect curing review, while a sea- or be trial accorded form of findings. judge’s information If the case were actual This almost none. man has appears ly involving supra. my and 4 one the resolution of footnotes single try in a than I not banc tells more facts case should be of in In fact denial desperately cases, grant so it shows that to secure full court in these its handling review of our issue. But is controversial the issue even where appearing my (as surely litigants hardly grant us the before responsibility oppose Ias can the that “evenhanded administra- benefit discriminatory present selection of cases justice” to which treatment which for favored results in all wish and which we to afford. alludes a distortion the law of such this Cir debated issue cuit. presents problem unseaworthiness grant petition. Although appears satisfy acutely. I would supra nearly by sharply and 4 trials,7 1,6 the conduct civil art. § Judges CLARK, in this ease arbitration,8 admiralty.9 labor SMITH MARSHALL. average dissenting out his recent of about CLARK has set views With a length. year, arguments apparent As granting it is some each his characterization strictly denying number of our record must limit the the court 3, 12, 7, 19, 13, 15, numbered 24. 1. Cases 5. numbered 22. Oases 4, 5, 11, 18, 2. Cases numbered 27. 30. 6. numbered Case 7. 14. numbered Case 6, 16, 20, 21, 3. numbered Cases 26, 2S, 29. numbered Case numbered Cases numbered 1. Case

Notes

cited applications L. the of the N. R. B. and why certiorari is not clear not It union). cases; sought the cases in more these any settled, by Applications plaintiffs may event have been Jones Act may litigation rehearing expense a bar be lane of decisions needy litigants. by overturning action awards in further their favor were ought spend Court, special time not to that him—is that interest to injury clearly personal cases. But to hear to me seems assiduous us even more error. should make seeing This instance is but another had in our court. full review is un- where this court has shown itself willing concep- adjust modern to the particular- procedure is Second,in banc by unseaworthiness as defined ly the cases here because in desirable always Supreme be Court.8 should It reviewed has which the Court deal- in mind are not now borne that we showing reversed, my are brothers recovery; plaintiff’s instead with the accept surprising reluctance to we concerned with the any meaning applied of the decisions by jury of fact can and how far an issue single except in which it is one jury. the as- taken from the Here example flows An unusual rendered. jury surely presents serted limitation Lines S. from the reversal in Salem U. If an seaman assault one issue. brandy knife with a bottle another jury of our of a award reversal presents jury issue, I a loss to am at Co., Cir., U. S. Lines Salem v. deadly equally attack ac- how an see complished holding plaintiff that the was not of the the skillful use produce expert required to evidence as law matter or hands as a bare hand rigging to the need for certain unseaworthy. ship cannot show ship. accepted result and re- We hearty Friend- accord with I am in the verdict in v. U. Lines stored Salem ly’s dissent, persuasive 309 F.2d Co., Cir., 672. But even gratuitous except for his though I for an 197— asked Congressional urging “revision of a bearing least to consider of this Su- long area that is so over- law in this preme decision, rehearing such province due,” an issue outside just upsetting our ings rendered decision find- taking ought sides. not to be we award of fact below was Rederi, Wallenco, denied in Nuzzo v. A/S glad LOMBARD 1 am Stockholm, Sweden, Cir., to examine this occasion has now taken why I am at a loss to understand accompanying care his situation Supreme Court the trolling decision was not con- light may opinion; more

important is where it supra rights and 7 sharply divides, show denial trial notwithstand- court so ing by Supreme precedents, Judge’s implication accorded to the the Chief per even a contrary) will be refusal to consider or discuss nonetheless decisions, applicants. Thus tinent the Nuzzo case denied to disfavored above, Rederi, support stated upon denial Nuzzo v. Wal what basis can A/S seeking letico, Stockholm, Sweden, Cir., prisoner’s 304 F. aof state overturning Naturally en I do not review of full-court any joy dissenting, I do not court find- but see and reasoned district careful ing way bring unfairness, Brown to the as in the other surface these of trial making actually quickly the law of case, to re- the Cir while finding contrary seemingly experienced cuit jority to what a ma such verse really colleague, judge, of the court I believes. now panel’s contemplate equanimity could case, rever- some or to overturn a Reid practice on an im- return to our old never based of a conviction sal granting of a confession proper procedure admission if such a my Coppola forth in note 2 set legal case—all can held under course the stat rulings diverse supra ? and other These 46(c). ute, I 28 U.S.C. But do feel a §

the decisions cited all rendered 9. Hence courts. divided

Case Details

Case Name: Joseph Walters v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jan 14, 1963

Citation: 312 F.2d 893

Docket Number: 15. Docket 27473

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.