was desirable to wait and see; or that the constitutional issue was entangled with nonconstitutional issues that raised doubt whether the constitutional issue could be effectively isolated; or for various other reasons not relating to the merits."13 See Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, where the Court refused to decide the constitutional validity of a federal statute, which had been the crucial issue below and which had led to the grant of certiorari, because of the presence of nonconstitutional issues which might alone have served as an adequate ground for disposition of the case.

Where a state statute has been held valid or invalid under the federal Constitution, the granting of certiorari upon the basis of importance will often depend upon the Court's impression of the correctness of the decision below and the novelty of the issues raised.

Apart from cases dealing with federal and state statutes, review is often sought of decisions which deal with various other matters of constitutional law, such as the application of the full faith and credit clause and the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment. But the presence of such issues, without more, is not enough to warrant review by certiorari. The issues must be novel, unsettled or important, a conflict of decisions must exist, or the law on the matter must be such as to warrant further consideration.

Statutory issues. Many of the cases coming to the Supreme Court on certiorari involve the construction and application of acts of Congress and federal administrative regulations. In some of them it can be shown that there is a conflict of decisions among lower courts or that there is a probable conflict with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. In others, however, the importance of the issue is the major basis for securing review.

13

18 Dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 227.

Among the variety of factors that may lend importance to a decision involving statutory construction or application is the significance of the issue in the administration of the statute (see, e.g., United States v. Ruzicka, 329 U. S. 287) or the serious hindrance to effective administration of the law caused by the lower court decision (see Rothensies v. Electric Battery Co., 329 U. S. 296). The issue may assume importance because the lower court decision is at war with a well-established construction given the statute by the administrative agents charged with its enforcement. Patterson v. Lamb, 329 U. S. 539 (decision below upset 25 years of War Department rulings and practices). Or the lower court decisions may be so inconsistent in theory as to leave the intent and meaning of the statute in a state of confusion. Importance may further be shown by demonstrating that the issue is novel or troublesome and is involved in numerous cases pending in lower courts, thereby making desirable an early and definitive ruling by the Supreme Court. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, 302, note 2; United States v. Powell, 330 U. S. 238. In tax cases it can sometimes be shown that the issue is one of continuing importance under successive revenue acts and that widespread litigation will continue until the point is settled by the Supreme Court.

The fact that especially large amounts of money are involved in litigation over the issue of statutory construction may also be a persuasive factor, though normally not sufficient by itself unless the amount is enormous. See United States v. Zazove, 334 U. S. 602, 613-14, note 17 (billions of dollars). And importance may grow out of the fact that many individuals are involved or are affected by the decision below. Patterson v. Lamb, 329 U. S. 539 (status and claims of thousands of draftees of World War I affected by decision below).

was desirable to wait and see; or that the constitutional issue was entangled with nonconstitutional issues that raised doubt whether the constitutional issue could be effectively isolated; or for various other reasons not relating to the merits."13 See Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, where the Court refused to decide the constitutional validity of a federal statute, which had been the crucial issue below and which had led to the grant of certiorari, because of the presence of nonconstitutional issues which might alone have served as an adequate ground for disposition of the case.

Where a state statute has been held valid or invalid under the federal Constitution, the granting of certiorari upon the basis of importance will often depend upon the Court's impression of the correctness of the decision below and the novelty of the issues raised.

Apart from cases dealing with federal and state statutes, review is often sought of decisions which deal with various other matters of constitutional law, such as the application of the full faith and credit clause and the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment. But the presence of such issues, without more, is not enough to warrant review by certiorari. The issues must be novel, unsettled or important, a conflict of decisions must exist, or the law on the matter must be such as to warrant further consideration.

Statutory issues. Many of the cases coming to the Supreme Court on certiorari involve the construction and application of acts of Congress and federal administrative regulations. In some of them it can be shown that there is a conflict of decisions among lower courts or that there is a probable conflict with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. In others, however, the importance of the issue is the major basis for securing review.

13

Dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 227.

Among the variety of factors that may lend importance to a decision involving statutory construction or application is the significance of the issue in the administration of the statute (see, e.g., United States v. Ruzicka, 329 U. S. 287) or the serious hindrance to effective administration of the law caused by the lower court decision (see Rothensies v. Electric Battery Co., 329 U. S. 296). The issue may assume importance because the lower court decision is at war with a well-established construction given the statute by the administrative agents charged with its enforcement. Patterson v. Lamb, 329 U. S. 539 (decision below upset 25 years of War Department rulings and practices). Or the lower court decisions may be so inconsistent in theory as to leave the intent and meaning of the statute in a state of confusion. Importance may further be shown by demonstrating that the issue is novel or troublesome and is involved in numerous cases pending in lower courts, thereby making desirable an early and definitive ruling by the Supreme Court. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, 302, note 2; United States v. Powell, 330 U. S. 238. In tax cases it can sometimes be shown that the issue is one of continuing importance under successive revenue acts and that widespread litigation will continue until the point is settled by the Supreme Court.

The fact that especially large amounts of money are involved in litigation over the issue of statutory construction may also be a persuasive factor, though normally not sufficient by itself unless the amount is enormous. See United States v. Zazove, 334 U. S. 602, 613-14, note 17 (billions of dollars). And importance may grow out of the fact that many individuals are involved or are affected by the decision below. Patterson v. Lamb, 329 U. S. 539 (status and claims of thousands of draftees of World War I affected by decision below).

Factual issues. The Supreme Court will usually deny certiorari when review is sought of a lower court decision which turns solely upon an analysis of the particular facts involved, or upon the construction of particular contracts or written instruments. Only where the case acquires importance for some other reason will the Court accept review of such a case and reexamine the facts. Otherwise the absence of a legal controversy of importance or of a direct conflict as to the factual issues will dictate a denial of certiorari in a case where merely the facts are in dispute.14 The Court is even less likely to take a case to review a factual issue or to reverse on such an issue if certiorari is granted for some other reason—where the findings of fact made by the district court receive the concurrence of the court of appeals. In that situation the Court has often held that "a court of law, such as this Court is, rather than a court for correction of errors in fact finding, cannot undertake to review concurrent findings of fact by two courts below in the absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275, and cases cited."

15

Of course, if two courts of appeals have reached conflicting decisions with respect to the construction of the same contract, instrument or patent, or have made different findings of fact as to the same subject matter, certiorari may be granted to review either decision so as to preserve uniformity of decision among circuits. But the conflict must be a real one. If the conflict arises from mere differences in the factual situations, certiorari will be denied or, if already granted, will be dismissed as improvidently granted.

14 See Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440.

15 This case was reargued on March 30, 1950 (No. 2, October Term,