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.
Moore, doing business as Moore's Bakery, v. Mead Service Co. et al., 1951 — 340 U.S. 944 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Moore, doing business as Moore's Bakery, v. Mead Service Co. et al.
340 U.S. 944·Supreme Court of the United States·1951
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
March 12, 1951.
No. 294,
Misc.
Moore, doing business as Moore’s Bakery, v. Mead Service Co. et al.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in the light of Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, ante, p. 211.
Dee C. Blythe for petitioner. Edward W. Napier, Howard F. Houk and Leslie Humphrey for respondents.