|
Dr. Linda M. Perry Title--first listed is petitioner (Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference); next is respondent (Noerr Motor Freight). U.S. Supreme Court in this case was an appellate court; court of last appeal. Petitioner is petitioning case to the Supreme Court because it lost at the trial court level and at the first level of appeal. Citation--365 U.S. 875 (1961). United States Reports (Supreme Court opinions), volume 365, starting on page 875, decided in the year 1961. Organization--First is "syllabus," a short summary of the case, including history of case through court system. This is not opinion. Read it to get gist of case, but be sure to read actual opinion. Court granted petition of certiorari (agreed to hear and decide case.) After hearing case, the Court meets in secret and votes. The chief justice decides who writes the opinion for the court if he was in the majority. If not, senior justice in majority decides. In this case, Justice Hugo Black worte the opinion for the majority. Holding: actual legal decision--outcome. At beginning in this case (not always). This is a Sherman Anti-Trust Act case. Holding was that railroaders had not violated the act. Facts--Court explains what happened that resulted in the parties being embroiled in the legal action. You should know the facts of this case for discussion. Detail about the antitrust act is not important for our purposes now. The opinion will explain the act and apply the law to the facts of this case. What action taken by the railroaders did the truckers say were violations of the act? What is the third-party technique used by the railroaders? Who, besides railroaders, were named as defendants in original complaint filed by truckers? Reasoning--This is where the Court explains why it decided the case the way it did. The reasoning is where the Court gets its actions accepted by public opinion. Look for:Why we are interested in this case? Why are railroaders' actions not in violation of the act (or are actions not covered by the act)? How are those actions covered by the Bill of Rights? This is a corporate speech case, cited in the lobbying section of the chapter you'll read about corporate speech law. Why are we reading this in a section on ethics? |
