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.
In re Groban et al., 1956 — 351 U.S. 903 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
In re Groban et al.
351 U.S. 903·Supreme Court of the United States·1956
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. 545.
In re Groban et al.
Ernest B. Graham for appellants. Malcom M. Prine for Paul, Sheriff, appellee.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. Rule 16 (4). The parties are requested to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments this Court’s jurisdiction to consider any questions raised by the possible applicability of In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, and In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, to the proceedings involved in this case.