Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. Shannon — Dissent

The judgment obtained by the Boshamers against the United States would in good conscience have to be held in trust for the Shannons.
Second. The suggestion that the writ be dismissed as improvidently granted raises a recurring problem in the administration of the business of the Court. A Justice who has voted to deny the writ of certiorari is in no position after argument to vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Only those who have voted to grant the writ have that privilege. The reason strikes deep.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. Shannon — Dissent

And of course disposition of this volume of petitions for certiorari is the smaller part of the Court's work. [2]
The fact that a case inappropriate for review escaped denial through a weeding-out process that is bound to be circumscribed, is no reason for compounding the oversight by disposing of such a case on the merits, after argument has made more luminously clear than did the preliminary examination of the papers that the litigation ought to be allowed to rest where it is by dismissing the writ. The reason for this was set forth on behalf of the Court by Mr.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature