United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

PETITIONER: United States
RESPONDENT: E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
LOCATION: Military Stockade

DOCKET NO.: 3
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1957-1958)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 353 US 586 (1957)
ARGUED: Nov 14, 1956 / Nov 15, 1956
DECIDED: Jun 03, 1957

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 15, 1956 (Part 2) in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 14, 1956 in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 15, 1956 (Part 1) in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

Earl Warren:

-- Appellant, versus E.I. du Pont Company, et al.

Mr. Davis.

John F . Davis:

Mr. Chief Justice, if the Court please.

When the Court rose yesterday afternoon, I was just about to call the Court's attention to a reprint of the opinion and judgment of the District Court, which appears in a grey bound volume, about the size of our brief.

It's an -- somewhat unusual procedure to reprint the findings of the court below.

But in this case -- outside of the record, but in this case, there appears to be some dispute between the appellees and the Government as to just which sections of this opinion we are attacking and if there is anything that this Court is entitled to know precisely, it is what part of those findings we are attacking.

So, we have reprinted the opinion of the court below, underscoring the -- anything in the opinion, which we ask this Court to -- to overturn.

On the first page of the opinion, we have listed the pages where the underscoring appears, so that it is easy to find the particular provisions, which are subject to attack here.

Felix Frankfurter:

May I at this point ask to be declared (Inaudible) right in thinking that you -- are you attacking some findings, not -- not because the evidence -- you're attacking some findings simply because the evidence has been sustained, is that right?

John F . Davis:

We are attacking, I think, none of the basic findings.

I think we've -- we -- and I think it's safe to say we're attacking the conclusions, not legal conclusions, but the -- the second step, the conclusions which are based on the findings of fact.

I don't think --

Felix Frankfurter:

Do you mean by that the inferences --

John F . Davis:

The inferences --

Felix Frankfurter:

-- and decided to draw?

John F . Davis:

The inferences which ought to be drawn from the specific facts.

Felix Frankfurter:

I was hoping you would tell me that all I have to do is to read the findings (Inaudible) conclusions that I gathered from what you've said that one really has to go through that letter.

John F . Davis:

No.

I -- I don't know what I said, I think --

Felix Frankfurter:

What do you say?

And never mind (Inaudible)

John F . Davis:

Yes.

Felix Frankfurter:

Hearing your misinterpretation, what do you say on that point?

How much of this record do you think I actually read and perhaps to render a traditional judgment?

John F . Davis:

It depends how far you go along with me, Your Honor.

I believe that there are -- that on the facts, which are found in this document, in this document alone, this Court should reach the opposite conclusion from that which the Court found.

If however, their question --

Felix Frankfurter:

Are you trying to tell things with time, which -- which findings are rather -- are self-destructive.

John F . Davis:

That's right.

I will do that.