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.
Leader et al. v. Apex Hosiery Co., 1937 — 302 U.S. 656 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Leader et al. v. Apex Hosiery Co.
302 U.S. 656·Supreme Court of the United States·1937
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. 414.
Leader et al. v. Apex Hosiery Co.
Decided December 13, 1937.
Messrs. Samuel L. Einhorn and Nathan Ziserman for petitioners. Mr. Stanley Folz for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Per Curiam:
Upon consideration of the return of the petitioners to the rule to show cause, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its decree and to dismiss the bill of complaint upon the ground that the cause is moot. Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 217, 218; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528, 535, 536; Bracken v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 299 U. S. 504.