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.
Six Companies of California et al. v. Joint Highway District No. 13 of California, 1940 — 311 U.S. 631 · caselaw · US
General
Six Companies of California et al. v. Joint Highway District No. 13 of California
311 U.S. 631·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 267.
Six Companies of California et al. v. Joint Highway District No. 13 of California.
October 14, 1940.
Messrs. Paul S. Marrin, Max Thelen, DeLancey C. Smith, and Jewel Alexander for petitioners. Messrs. Theodore P. Wittschen and Archibald B. Tinning for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted, limited to the first question presented by the petition.