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.
PICCIOLI v. UNITED STATES, 1968 — 390 U.S. 202 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
PICCIOLI v. UNITED STATES
390 U.S. 202·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
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
PICCIOLI v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4.
Decided March 4, 1968
Alfred Belinkie for petitioner in No. 4. Edward G. Burstein for petitioner in No. 5. David Goldstein and Jacob D. Zeldes for petitioner in No. 6. Francis J. DiMento, Paul J. Bums and Ronald R. Popeo for petitioners in No. 10. Albert J. Krieger and Robert Kasanof for petitioners in No. 32. Max M. Barr for petitioner in No. 374.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tarnor Golding for the United States in No. 4 and No. 2, Mise. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States in Nos. 6, 6 and 10. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Miss Rosenberg for the United States in No. 32. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States in No. 374.
Together with No. 5, Millo v. United States; No. 6, Grassia v. United States; No. 10, Driscoll et al. v. United States; No. 32, Serao et al. v. United States; No. 374, Wrieole v. United States; and No. 2, Misc., Gjanci v. United States, all on petitions for writs of certiorari. Nos. 5, 6, 32, and 2, Misc., are to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 374 to the Third Circuit, and No. 10 to the First Circuit. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pawperis in No. 2, Misc., is also granted.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments of the courts below are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further consideration in the light of Marchetti v. United, States, ante, p. 39.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.