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.
Osmond et al. v. Spence et al., 1972 — 405 U.S. 971 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Osmond et al. v. Spence et al.
405 U.S. 971·Supreme Court of the United States·1972
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. 70-291.
Osmond et al. v. Spence et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. Del. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Swarb v. Lennox, ante, p. 191, and D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Ohio v. Frick Co., ante, p. 174. Order of June 21, 1971, entered by Mr. Justice Brennan, as modified by his order of August 20, 1971, shall continue in effect unless and until superseded by order of District Court.