Hyperlawhypertext legal database Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully 459 U.S. 1144

← Cases

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully

459 U.S. 1144 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1983-01-17 Docket No. 81-2394 English

Judges with whom Justice Marshall joins,

Decision Majority (1) · Dissent — Stevens J.

Contents
p. 1144
No. 81-2394.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully et al.

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.

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.