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.
California Fruit Growers Exchange v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 1939 — 308 U.S. 567 · caselaw · US
General
California Fruit Growers Exchange v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
308 U.S. 567·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 91.
California Fruit Growers Exchange v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
October 9, 1939.
Messrs. George E. Farrand, James W. Carpenter, Preston C. King, Jr., and Karl D. Loos for petitioner. Mr. Edward R. Brumley for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut denied.