Reply Memo for Conditional Cross Petitioners — United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co.

- :

; ;

- 4

’?

am |

Pt

n

Wome PP YILI

PREP oes _— — a

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Th roBer Tero, 195,

No. 477.

THE SHOTWELE MANURACTURING COMPANY,

BYRON AL CAIN, FRANK J. HUEBNER axp HAROLD

~h. SULLIVAN,

Cross-1' fitroqe Pes

THR UNITED STATES OF AMERECA, °

. Respondeut,

.

REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR CONDITIONAL CROSS.

PETITIONERS.

Htarono A. Sein,

Cirongk DB. CurisreNnses,

Howann Miais,

Wirtraw Po Winey,

Counsel tor Cross

Pi fithoners,

Winston, Straws, Brack & Towser,

BSS. Dearborn Street,

(‘hieago, Illinois, :

L ss

KIRKLAND, EReMING. Green, Mares & Biaes,

D3 N. LaSalle Street,

Chicago, IHlinots,

Of Counsel,

IN THE

— Supreme Court of the United States

Octoper Trnay 1o55.

No. 471.

THE. SHOTWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

BYRON A. CAIN, FRANK J. HURBNER asp HAROLD

-E. SULLIVAN, |

Crdass-Pr hitione Ss

ra.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

. Re spondent,

REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR CONDITIONAL CROSS.

PETITIONERS. ae

This reply is limited te the question of timeliness of the

Conditional Cross-Petition. It should not be-construed as

a deviation from our basic position that certiorari should .

be denied in No. 470, this term, and in that event, here

also. But if the writ should be granted in No. 470, it should

be granted here.

We-do not understand that the Solicitor General con-

tends that = Cross-Petition is untimely. Nor could

he well do so because inspection of the briefs in) Johu-

son Vv. Bisentrager, 38389 U.S. 7638, reveals that in that

ease the Government considered, just as we assert here,

that the running of time for certiorari was tolled for

all parties where one of them (there the Government's

)

opponent), filed a petition for rehearing below. The Court,

without discussion. of the point, allowed the writ. Stern

hind Ciressman, in their Supreme Court Practice, 2d ed. p.

ws.

166, state that a similar result was reached in be

Crescent Amusement Co. 823 COS. 173. (The -briefs and

record in that case are. not currently available to us.)

Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis Honeywell

Co., 344 UL S. 206, is.of no assistance because it did not

in any way involve a petition for rehearing, much less

one in a eriminal case in which the judement is neces-

sarily unitary (Cf. Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423).

It involved-suceessive judgments on separate and sever-

able parts of a Federal Trade Commission order.

Respectfully submitted,

.

Harotp A. Suir,

Grorce B. CHeristENseN,

Hiowarp Eiuis, — °

: Wituiam T. Kirpy,

Counsel far Cross-

, | . Petitioners.

Winston, Strawn, Brack & TowNeER,

38S. Dearborn Street, —

Chicago, Illinois,

Kirk Lanp, Fuemine, Greex, Martix & Extis,

33 N. LaSalle Street,

Chicago, Ilinois,

| Of Counsel.

November 22, 1959.