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 Shipyards, Inc. v. Hoey, Executrix, 1943 — 318 U.S. 791 · caselaw · US
General
United Shipyards, Inc. v. Hoey, Executrix
318 U.S. 791·Supreme Court of the United States·1943
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. 835.
United Shipyards, Inc. v. Hoey, Executrix.
April 19, 1943.
Mr. John F. Condon, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Samuel O. Clark, Jr., and Messrs. Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Joseph M. Jones for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.