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.
Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. et al.; and Same v. Easy Washing Machine Corp., 1939 — 306 U.S. 666 · caselaw · US
General
Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. et al.; and Same v. Easy Washing Machine Corp.
306 U.S. 666·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 76.
No. 77.
Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. et al.; and Same v. Easy Washing Machine Corp.
February 6, 1939.
[MAJORITY]
Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing' granted; and petition for rehearing granted. The orders denying certiorari (305 U. S. 599) are vacated, and the petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is granted.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, Wallace B. Lane, Nelson E. Johnson, Oscar W. Jeffery, and Benton^ Baker for petitioner.
Messrs. William H. David and Dean S. Edmonds for..respondents-.-
Reported below: 96 F. 2d 87. See also 305 U. S. 599.