Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. v. United States Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States
Headline: Two federal cases are restored for reconsideration as the Court revokes prior judgments and withdraws its May 27 opinion, reopening disputes for further review by the Court and the parties involved.
Holding: The Court ordered both cases restored to its docket for reconsideration, revoked and set aside the prior judgments, and withdrew the May 27 opinion.
- Revokes prior judgments and reopens the cases for reconsideration
- Withdraws the Court’s May 27 opinion from effect
- Forces parties to continue litigation before the Court
Summary
Background
These two cases involve Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Company and Indian Motocycle Company against the United States. They were argued on April 25, 1929, and on June 3, 1929 the matters were restored to the Court’s docket. Counsel for the companies and for the Government are named in the short order, and the Court refers to an opinion that it had announced on May 27. The order itself focuses on procedural steps rather than the underlying facts of the disputes.
Reasoning
In a brief per curiam order, the Court directed that both cases be returned to the docket for reconsideration. It revoked and set aside the judgments that had been entered and ordered the May 27 opinion withdrawn. Those actions mean the Court determined the earlier judgments and the announced opinion should not remain in effect while the Court reexamines the matters, so the prior outcome is no longer treated as final.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is procedural: the parties no longer face final judgments and the May 27 opinion is withdrawn, so the disputes will be reexamined by the Court. This order is not a final decision on the merits and could be followed by new rulings. The Government and both companies must be prepared for further proceedings and possible new opinions or judgments.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?