Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Company/Dissent Goldberg

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinions
Black
Goldberg

United States Supreme Court

381 U.S. 311

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company  v.  New Jersey Wood Finishing Company

 Argued: April 29, 1965. --- Decided: May 24, 1965


Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, dissenting.

With all deference, I dissent. I agree with the Court, ante, at 321 that, as we recently stated in Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 427, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 1054, the pivotal question for determination is 'whether congressional purpose is effectuated by tolling the statute of limitations in given circumstances.' I cannot agree, however, that the Court has correctly applied that test in this case. As my Brother BLACK has so well demonstrated in his dissenting opinion, both the language and legislative history of the statutes before us clearly show that Congress did not intend that the statute of limitations applicable to private antitrust actions be tolled by the institution of a Federal Trade Commission administrative proceeding. Cf. United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152. It frustrates rather than effectuates congressional purpose to fail to honor the express intent of Congress in this given circumstance.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).