Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
ROSADO et al. v. WYMAN et al., 1969 — 396 U.S. 1213 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
ROSADO et al. v. WYMAN et al.
396 U.S. 1213·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
ROSADO et al. v. WYMAN et al.
Decided August 20, 1969
See: 414 F. 2d 170.
Lee A. Albert and Robert B. Borsody on the application.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshoioitz, First Assistant Attorney General, Amy Juviler, Assistant Attorney General, and Philip Weinberg in opposition.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan, Circuit Justice.]
Mr. Justice Harlan, Circuit Justice.
While I am of the view that this case is not unlikely to be found a worthy candidate for certiorari, I am also of the opinion that the present application for an interim stay and other relief should be passed along to the full Court for consideration.
The latter conclusion follows from my belief that the factors involved in determining whether a stay should issue are such as to call for the collective judgment of the members of the Court and not merely that of an individual Justice; from the circumstance that the Court itself has already denied a similar stay application, albeit at a stage when the case was in a different posture; and from the fact that an individual Justice has no power to order an accelerated schedule for briefing and hearing on the underlying merits of the case, an aspect of the present application that seems to me importantly related to the request for a stay.
If applicants’ petition for certiorari is promptly filed, that should ensure its consideration and disposition by the Court at its first Conference in October. At that time, I shall, pursuant to Rule 50 (6), refer this application to the Court for simultaneous consideration and action.