Local 189 v. United States, 1969

File — Folder: 1

Identifier: Folder 1

Staff Only

No. 25,956; 416 F.2d 980 (1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 319 (1970)

An article written by counsel for appellee appeared in the Harvard Law Review after argument in this case, and Judge Wisdom cited to it in his proposed opinion. In the brief in support of petition for rehearing en banc, appellant objected.

Chief Judge Brown and Judge Bell, neither of whom was member of the panel hearing the case, initially were inclined to agree with appellant, and Chief Judge Brown suggested that appellant at least be allowed to furnish supplemental briefs in answer. Judge Wisdom defended his position, however, and the petition was denied.

Includes TLS of Judge Krantzman on the proposed opinion of Judge Wisdom

Also includes TLS of Judge Bell on the merits on petition for rehearing en banc; TLS of Chief Judge Brown on the merits on petition for rehearing en banc, the citations, on law professors as advocates, generally, referring to Richard B. Sobol, attorney for appellee and coauthor of the article in questin, and referring to possilbe procedure to be followed on the petition for rehearing; TLS (and draft) of Judge Wisdom to counsel for appellant, TLS of Judge Wisdom to Judges Brown and Bell, on the merits on petition for rehearing en banc and the opinion; and, TLS of Judge Brown and TLS of Judge Bell on having corresponded on the objections raised in the petition.

And includes TLS of Philip B. Sklover, attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and the adoption there of the holding in this case.