Harbison v. C. G. Lewellyn
Headline: Multiple individuals’ requests for Supreme Court review were denied, leaving the Third Circuit’s decision in place and preventing these petitioners from getting immediate review.
Holding: Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
- Leaves Third Circuit decision in place for these parties
- Prevents immediate Supreme Court review of these cases
- No Supreme Court opinion resolving the underlying legal issues
Summary
Background
Several individuals named in the opinion filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to review litigation against C. G. Lewellyn, identified as "formerly collector." The filings are listed under multiple docket numbers (No. 134–148) and were presented to the Court on October 14, 1929. The opinion lists counsel for the petitioners, including J. E. MacCloskey, Jr., and F. H. Atwood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The petitions sought writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Reasoning
The Court's action in this short opinion is clear: "Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied." The opinion in the text contains no extended explanation or legal analysis of the underlying disputes. Because the Court simply denied the petitions in this order, it did not issue a written majority opinion resolving the substantive legal questions raised by the petitioners.
Real world impact
By declining to grant review, the Supreme Court left the Third Circuit's rulings implicated in these petitions as the operative federal decisions for the parties named in the opinion. The order prevents immediate Supreme Court review of these matters and leaves the petitioners without relief from this Court at this time. This procedural denial is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal claims and does not resolve the substantive issues raised in the petitions. The opinion ends Supreme Court consideration of these filings for the time being.
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?