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.
General
OSBOURNE et al. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
389 U.S. 579·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
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
OSBOURNE et al. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. et al.
No. 768.
Decided January 15, 1968.
John L. Laubach, Jr., for appellants Osbourne et al.
Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moermatn, J. Raymond Clark and James M. Henderson for Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. et al., and Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and judgment is affirmed without prejudice to the presentation of an appropriate motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for a modification of the injunction.