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.
Morris et al. v. United States, 1940 — 311 U.S. 653 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Morris et al. v. United States
311 U.S. 653·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration ■ and decision of this application.
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. 297.
Morris et al. v. United States.
October 14, 1940.
Mr. Frank J. Looney for petitioners. Solicitor Generad Biddle, Assistant Attorney. General Rogge, and Messrs. J. Albert JVeil, M. Joseph Matan, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
.Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration ■ and decision of this application.