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.
Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, et al. v. Nihiser, dba Movieland Drive-in Theater, 1977 — 431 U.S. 961 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, et al. v. Nihiser, dba Movieland Drive-in Theater
431 U.S. 961·Supreme Court of the United States·1977
Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would vacate judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Trainor v. Hernandez, ante, p. 434.
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
June 13, 1977
No. 76-675.
Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, et al. v. Nihiser, dba Movieland Drive-in Theater.
[MAJORITY]
Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ind.
Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would vacate judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Trainor v. Hernandez, ante, p. 434.