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.
Crest Specialty, a Limited Partnership, v. Trager, doing business as Topic Toys, et al., 1951 — 341 U.S. 912 · caselaw · US
General
Crest Specialty, a Limited Partnership, v. Trager, doing business as Topic Toys, et al.
341 U.S. 912·Supreme Court of the United States·1951
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
April 23, 1951.
No. 446.
Crest Specialty, a Limited Partnership, v. Trager, doing business as Topic Toys, et al.
Argued April 10,1951. Decided
[MAJORITY]
Certi-orari, 340 U. S. 928, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Per Curiam: The judgment is reversed. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147.
April 23, 1951.
Clarence E. Threedy argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Max R. Kraus argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Sidney Neuman.