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.
SHUBIN et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA et al., 1962 — 369 U.S. 660 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
SHUBIN et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA et al.
369 U.S. 660·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
SHUBIN et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 726.
Decided May 14, 1962.
William Douglas Sellers for petitioners.
Robert W. Fulwider for S. Yincen Bowles, Inc., respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in light of Dairy Queen, Inc., v. Wood, ante, p. 469.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.