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.
Duck v. Arkansas Corporation Commission, 1942 — 316 U.S. 641 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Duck v. Arkansas Corporation Commission
316 U.S. 641·Supreme Court of the United States·1942
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. 1060.
Duck v. Arkansas Corporation Commission.
April 6, 1942.
Mr. Edward H. Coulter for appellant. Mr. Jack Holt, Attorney General of Arkansas, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. California v. Thompson, 313 U. S. 109; Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236.