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.
Parfums Corday, Inc., v. United States; and Lanvin Parfums, Inc., v. United States, 1958 — 355 U.S. 951 · caselaw · US
General
Parfums Corday, Inc., v. United States; and Lanvin Parfums, Inc., v. United States
355 U.S. 951·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
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. 751.
No. 752.
Parfums Corday, Inc., v. United States; and Lanvin Parfums, Inc., v. United States.
Samuel I. Rosenman, Seymour D. Lewis and Joseph Hochman for appellant in No. 751. Simon H. Rifkind and Walter J. Derenberg for appellant in No. 752. Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Probable jurisdiction noted.