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.
Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co., 1940 — 311 U.S. 673 · caselaw · US
General
Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co.
311 U.S. 673·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. 277.
Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co.
October 14, 1940.
Messrs. Drury W. Cooper, Thomas-J. Byrne, and Henry M. Huxley for petitioner. Messrs. Bernard A. .Schroeder-, Russell Wiles, and George A. Chritton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for'writ of certio-rari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.