Western Pacific Railroad Corp. et al. v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. et al. (345 U.S. 247)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 6, 1953 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 345 U.S. 247 · 73 S. Ct. 656
- Docket
- No. 150
- Argued
- December 15, 1952
- Decided
- April 6, 1953
- Term
- October Term 1952
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Vinson
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson (wrote), Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice Douglas, Justice Reed, Justice Black
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Frankfurter (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners in these causes — a corporation and some of its stockholders — seek an accounting from respondents — certain other corporations which, prior to a reorganization in 1943, were subsidiaries of the petitioning corporation. It is petitioners’ theory that respondents had unjustly enriched themselves by wrongfully appropriating a “tax loss” incurred by petitioner Western Pacific Railroad Corporation and applying it to the sole benefit of respondent Western Pacific Railroad Company. The factual background upon which petitioners’ complaint was founded is as complicated as it is unique. For present purposes, we may pass over it. Suffice it to say that the cause of action was founded on a theory of unjust enrichment; jurisdiction of the federal courts was invoked upon the grounds of the diverse citizenship of the parties. The District Court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed by a two-to-one vote. Petitioners then applied for a rehearing before the Court of Appeals en banc. With one dissent, the rehearing was denied; the court in its order struck the request that the rehearing be en banc. Petitioners then filed a second application protesting that the action of the two judges, who struck out the request for a rehearing en banc, was error because such a request was authorized by statute and…
Excerpt of a 56,431-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.