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.
Fenton v. Walling, Administrator; and Smith v. Walling, Administrator, 1944 — 321 U.S. 798 · caselaw · US
General
Fenton v. Walling, Administrator; and Smith v. Walling, Administrator
321 U.S. 798·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. 764.
No. 765.
Fenton v. Walling, Administrator; and Smith v. Walling, Administrator.
April 10, 1944.
Messrs. Louis Ferrari, G. D. Schilling, and Philip S. Ehrlich for petitioners. Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. Douglas B. Maggs and Joseph I. Nachman, and Miss Bessie Margolin for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.