You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co.

Citation: 355 U.S. 901Docket: 11

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 2, 1958; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the motion from United States Gypsum Company (appellant) to recall and modify a prior judgment. This denial was made without prejudice, allowing the Solicitor General the option to move to dissolve the ruling of the three-judge district court. Justice Clark abstained from participating in the decision regarding this motion. Representation for the appellant included attorneys Bruce Bromley, Cranston Spray, Robert C. Keck, John D. Calhoun, and Hugh Lynch, Jr. The United States was represented by Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, and others, while National Gypsum Company (appellees) was represented by attorneys Samuel I. Rosenman, Elmer E. Finck, Seymour D. Lewis, Malcolm A. Hoffmann, and Seymour Krieger.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Motion to Recall and Modify Judgment

Application: The Supreme Court denied the motion from United States Gypsum Company to recall and modify a prior judgment, indicating that the judgment stands as is but can be challenged under certain conditions.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of the United States denied the motion from United States Gypsum Company (appellant) to recall and modify a prior judgment.

Denial Without Prejudice

Application: The denial was issued without prejudice, which means that the appellant retains the right to seek further judicial relief or action in the future.

Reasoning: This denial was made without prejudice, allowing the Solicitor General the option to move to dissolve the ruling of the three-judge district court.

Judicial Abstention

Application: Justice Clark abstained from participating in the decision, reflecting judicial practice where a Justice may choose not to partake in a ruling due to potential conflicts of interest or other reasons.

Reasoning: Justice Clark abstained from participating in the decision regarding this motion.