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.
American Motor Specialties Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1960 — 364 U.S. 884 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
American Motor Specialties Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission
364 U.S. 884·Supreme Court of the United States·1960
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. 368.
American Motor Specialties Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.
Meyer Schifrin for petitioners. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Charles H. Weston, Daniel J. McCauley, Jr. and Alan B. Hobbes for respondent. David C. Murchison and Robert L. Wald for movants.
[MAJORITY]
The motion of Mid-South Distributors et al. for leave to defer consideration of the petition is denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.