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.
Holophane Co., Inc., v. United States, 1956 — 352 U.S. 903 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Holophane Co., Inc., v. United States
352 U.S. 9031 L. Ed. 2d 114·Supreme Court of the United States·1956
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
November 13, 1956.
No. 2.
Holophane Co., Inc., v. United States.
Argued November 5, 1956.
Decided November 13, 1956.
Richard F. Stevens argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Howard F. Burns, Shepard Broad and Lewis Horwitz. Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin and Assistant Attorney General Hansen.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The Court unanimously affirms the judgment and decree of the District Court except paragraph XI, and that paragraph is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.