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.; Same v. General Electric Supply Corp., 1938 — 305 U.S. 599 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. et al.; and Same v. Easy Washing Machine Corp.; Same v. General Electric Supply Corp.
305 U.S. 599·Supreme Court of the United States·1938
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.
No. 352.
Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. et al.; and Same v. Easy Washing Machine Corp. Same v. General Electric Supply Corp.
October 10, 1938.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, Wallace R. Lane, Benton Baker, Oscar W. Jeffery, and Nelson E. Johnson for petitioner.
Messrs. William H. Davis and Dean S. Edmonds for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
On petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Motion to defer consideration of the applications for writs of certiorari in these cases, and petitions for writs of cer-tiorari, denied.
Reported below: Nos. 76 and 77, 96 F. 2d 87.