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.
Swift & Co., Inc., et al. v. Wickham, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York, 1965 — 379 U.S. 997 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Swift & Co., Inc., et al. v. Wickham, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York
379 U.S. 997·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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. 571.
Swift & Co., Inc., et al. v. Wickham, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York.
William J. Condon, William J. Colavito, Edmund L. Jones, William P. Woods and Earl G. Spiker for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Philip Kahaner and Lester Esterman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appel-lee..
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief on the merits.