General
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully et al.
459 U.S. 1144·Supreme Court of the United States·1983
with whom Justice Marshall joins,
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
No. 81-2394.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Question 1 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction. With respect to Question 2 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
[DISSENT — Justice Stevens,]
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Marshall joins,
dissenting.
While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the second question in the jurisdictional statement is insubstantial, I do not believe a court of law has the power simultaneously to dismiss and to accept jurisdiction of a single appeal from a single judgment, I therefore do not join the Court’s order.