Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
United States v. Waterhouse et al., 1944 — 321 U.S. 743 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
United States v. Waterhouse et al.
321 U.S. 74388 L. Ed. 1047·Supreme Court of the United States·1944
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 209.
United States v. Waterhouse et al.
Argued January 5, 6, 1944.
Decided January 17, 1944.
Assistant Attorney General Littell, with whom Solicitor General Fahy and Messrs. Vernon L. Wilkinson and Roger P. Marquis were on the brief, for the United States, Mr. Herman Phleger, with whom Mr. A. G. M. Robertson was on the brief, for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Certiorari, 320 U. S. 723, to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Per Curiam:
Judgment affirmed by an equally divided Court. Mr. Justice Jackson states that, the proceeding having been commenced, as the record shows, “under the instructions of the Attorney General” and the valuation for which the Government now contends appearing to have been fixed at the time when he held that office, he thinks it inappropriate that he should now participate in the determination of the case, notwithstanding he has no recollection of personal participation in the Departmental action.