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
Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al.
379 U.S. 987·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. 360.
Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Louis F. Claiborne, Harold H. Greene and David Rubin for the United States, as amicus curiae, in opposition. Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph C. Carter, Jr., and E. Milton Farley III for appellants on the motion.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 810.) The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in the oral argument, as amicus curiae, is granted and fiftéen minutes are-allotted for that purpose. Counsel for the appellants are allotted an additional fifteen minutes for oral argument. The motion of the appellants to strike the brief, as amicus curiae, of the Solicitor General is denied. Counsel for the appellants are allowed thirty days from the date of service to file a reply to the brief of the Solicitor General.