Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 34 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34

Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995)

Stevens, J., dissenting

that the very contingency against which they guard shall, if it happens, discharge them, seems to us bad law and worse logic"). The inequity that the Court today condones does not, of course, demonstrate that its legal analysis is incorrect. It does, however, persuade me that the Court should not review this case as though it presented an ordinary collateral attack on an injunction entered by an Article III court.22

Instead, the Court should, I believe, more carefully consider which of the two competing tribunals is guilty of trespassing in the other's domain.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

333

22 Indeed, one wonders if the same analysis would apply to a bankruptcy judge's injunction that purported to prevent this Court from allowing a successful litigant to enforce a supersedeas bond posted by a nondebtor in this Court pursuant to our Rule 23.4.

Page:   Index   Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34

Last modified: October 4, 2007