Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (June 28, 1982)

Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (June 28, 1982)

LexisNexis Overview: The Bankruptcy Act of 1978's assignment of jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts of all civil proceedings arising under or related to cases filed under Title 11 was found to have violated art. III of the United States Constitution.

Counsel: John L. Devney argued the cause for appellant in No. 81-150. With him on the briefs was Jeffrey F. Shaw. Solicitor General Lee argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General McGrath, Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro, Alan I. Horowitz, William Kanter, and Michael F. Hertz.

Melvin I. Orenstein argued the cause for appellee Marathon Pipe Line Co. With him on the brief were Charles S. Cassis, John E. Compson, and Kenneth J. Orlowski.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Louis W. Levit for the Commercial Law League of America; and by Helen Davis Chaitman, Joel B. Zweibel, Theodore Gewertz, and Peter Buscemi for the Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Abe Fortas, Henry F. Field, Phil C. Neal, and Joseph M. Berl filed a brief for Beneficial Corp. as amicus curiae.

Judges: BRENNAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. 89. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 92. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 92.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company

Non-subscribers can view the free, unenhanced version of Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, on lexisONE's Free Case Law

  • Tags: