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.
United States v. Bloom; United States v. Edens et al., Trustees; United States v. General Engineering & Manufacturing Co., 1952 — 342 U.S. 912 · caselaw · US
General
United States v. Bloom; United States v. Edens et al., Trustees; United States v. General Engineering & Manufacturing Co.
342 U.S. 912·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
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. 100.
No. 299.
No. 300.
United States v. Bloom. United States v. Edens et al., Trustees. United States v. General Engineering & Manufacturing Co.
Argued January 10, 1952.
Decided January 14, 1952.
I. Henry Kutz argued the, cause in No. 100, and John F. Davis argued the causes in Nos. 299 and 300, for the United States. With them on the briefs were Solicitor General Perlmans and Acting Assistant Attorney General Slack. Helen Goodner was also with them on the brief in No. 100. Henry Hammer argued the cause arid filed a brief for respondents in No. 299. James S. McClellan argued the cause, and George C. Willson filed a brief, for respondent in No. 300. Irwin Geiger submitted on brief for respondent in No. 100.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgments are affirmed. City of New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328.