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.
E T & W N C TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CURRIE, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1959 — 359 U.S. 28 · caselaw · US
General
E T & W N C TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CURRIE, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH CAROLINA
359 U.S. 283 L. Ed. 2d 625·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Whittaker and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in these cases.
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
E T & W N C TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CURRIE, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 524.
Decided March 2, 1959.
Kester Walton and James H. Epps, Jr. for appellant.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, and Williams v. Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc., 358 U. S. 450.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Whittaker and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in these cases.