Contracts · MBE-tested
PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS et al.
371 U.S. 1849 L. Ed. 2d 227·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice White would affirm the judgment below for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Hewitt-Robins.
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
PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS et al.
No. 222.
Decided December 3, 1962.
Carl M. Gould for petitioner.
Theodore W. Russell, George L. Catlin and Joseph P. Loeb for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., ante, p. 84.
Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice White would affirm the judgment below for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Hewitt-Robins.