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.

Frank P. Battaglia v. United States

Citation: 385 U.S. 115Docket: 564

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; January 16, 1967; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Frank P. Battaglia et al. v. United States et al., ruled on November 21, 1966, granting motions to affirm and thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. The case involved multiple parties, with Earle V. White representing the appellants and Solicitor General Marshall, among others, representing the United States. Additionally, Randall B. Kester and others represented the railroad appellees. Justice Harlan expressed a differing opinion, suggesting that the case merits noting probable jurisdiction and should be scheduled for oral argument.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Procedure and Affirmation of Lower Court Judgments

Application: The Supreme Court granted motions to affirm, thus upholding the decision made by the lower court without hearing oral arguments.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Frank P. Battaglia et al. v. United States et al., ruled on November 21, 1966, granting motions to affirm and thereby affirming the lower court's judgment.

Dissenting Opinions and Judicial Disagreement

Application: Justice Harlan's dissent suggests that the case deserved further consideration through oral arguments, indicating a divergence in judicial opinion regarding the procedural handling of the case.

Reasoning: Justice Harlan expressed a differing opinion, suggesting that the case merits noting probable jurisdiction and should be scheduled for oral argument.

Representation and Roles of Legal Counsel

Application: Various legal representatives were involved, with Earle V. White representing the appellants and Solicitor General Marshall representing the United States, highlighting the diverse legal representation in federal appellate cases.

Reasoning: The case involved multiple parties, with Earle V. White representing the appellants and Solicitor General Marshall, among others, representing the United States.