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.
Howard v. United States; and Levinson et al. v. United States, 1969 — 395 U.S. 958 · caselaw · US
General
Howard v. United States; and Levinson et al. v. United States
395 U.S. 958·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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. 995.
No. 1089.
Howard v. United States; and Levinson et al. v. United States.
Marvin W. Cherrin for petitioner in No. 995, and Joseph W. Louisell, Ivan E. Botris, and Frank W. Wiseman for petitioners in No. 1089.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Leonard H. Dickstein for the United States in both cases.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 405 F. 2d 971.