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.
DICKINSON, COMPTROLLER OF FLORIDA v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOMESTEAD et al., 1969 — 393 U.S. 409 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
DICKINSON, COMPTROLLER OF FLORIDA v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOMESTEAD et al.
393 U.S. 409·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. · Mr. Justice Fortas 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
DICKINSON, COMPTROLLER OF FLORIDA v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOMESTEAD et al.
No. 741.
Decided January 20, 1969.
Earl Fair cloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Fred M. Burns and Larry Levy, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.
0. Ralph Matousek for appellee First National Bank of Homestead.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.