Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawper curiaminterlocutory injunctionsummary affirmanceappealjurisdictional statement

Facts

The opinion states only that there was an appeal from an order granting an interlocutory injunction. It also notes that a jurisdictional statement had been filed. The Court identifies counsel for appellants and notes that there was no appearance for appellee. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the substantive facts.

Issue

Whether the order granting an interlocutory injunction should be affirmed on appeal.

Rule

An order granting an interlocutory injunction may be summarily affirmed on appeal where the Court, relying on cited precedents, concludes affirmance is proper.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A three-judge federal court in Chicago enters an interlocutory injunction against enforcement of a state economic regulation. The state officials appeal directly to the Supreme Court, file a jurisdictional statement, and the appellee files no appearance.

Under the majority opinion, which disposition is most clearly consistent with the Court's stated approach?

Explanation. The opinion states only that there was an appeal from an order granting an interlocutory injunction, that a jurisdictional statement had been filed, and that the order was affirmed per curiam with citations. It therefore supports the proposition that such an order may be summarily affirmed on appeal without extended discussion. (Derived from Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. (n.d.).)