Wilson v. Loew's, Incorporated

PETITIONER: Wilson
RESPONDENT: Loew's, Incorporated
LOCATION: Wolverine Tube, Inc.

DOCKET NO.: 33
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1957-1958)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 355 US 597 (1958)
ARGUED: Jan 08, 1958
DECIDED: Mar 03, 1958

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Wilson v. Loew's, Incorporated

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 08, 1958 (Part 1) in Wilson v. Loew's, Incorporated

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 08, 1958 (Part 2) in Wilson v. Loew's, Incorporated

Irving M. Walker:

I'm sorry but I understand your statement -- provided argument.

I must confess to a sentimental desire on my part not to complete a professional career that run for 50 odd years without having the privilege of addressing this Court.

I have a more substantive reason, however, for presenting an argument at this time.

I should like to emphasize one of the points that are made by the respondents, which it seems to me might be controlling of this case in this Court.

I refer particularly, to the question of jurisdiction and more particularly to the contention of the respondents that the constitutional points now are being urged upon the Court by the petitioners were raised too late.

They were not raised in the trial court.

It's quite too that under the law of California a statement or allegations of fact are all that is required.

But somewhere along the line, the attention of the Court if constitutional points are involved or federal laws are involved must be called to that fact.

And in the case at bar and notwithstanding the protestations of my learned opponent, these matters were not called to the attention of the trial court.

There is a statement in the reply brief to the effect that they were all called to the attention of the Court and I must call attention to the fact that nowhere in this record does it appear that these matters were called to the attention of the trial court as constitutional questions and that the decision of the trial court did not vest upon any of the so-called constitutional questions.

It is true that in the memorandum opinion of the trial judge, there is some reference to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

But it's in the general context of the discussion as to whether or not the plaintiffs in the action had met -- met the obligation to show that there was no justification for the complaint of acts of the defendants.

Now, it is said by the petitioners that the judgment of the District Court has denied them due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and an equal protection of the laws.

Could I ask you one question --

Irving M. Walker:

Yes, indeed --

-- Mr. Walker?

In their petition for rehearing, did it raise the question?

Irving M. Walker:

In the petition for rehearing they raised a number of these questions all those --

Is that (Voice Overlap) under your preference that's too late (Voice Overlap) --

Irving M. Walker:

That is too late under our facts and has been so declared by this Court in connection with California cases.

It is your contention at that point to eliminate the whole case?

Irving M. Walker:

Yes, Your Honor.

I'm glad so.

That's the reason I indicated that this might be determined into the case.

There is the complaint as indicated by Mr. Margolis that it is the judgment --

Felix Frankfurter:

May I ask you --

Irving M. Walker:

Yes.

Felix Frankfurter:

-- one further question?

In the petition for review or whatever segment you will call?

What is it in California?