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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND et al. v. HORACE MANN LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
385 U.S. 97·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that in No. 473 certiorari should be granted and the case set for plenary consideration, and that in No. 590 probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for oral argument.
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
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND et al. v. HORACE MANN LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
No. 473.
Decided November 14, 1966.
Thomas B. Finan, former Attorney General of Maryland, for' the Board of Public Works of Maryland, and William L. Marbury for Saint Joseph College et al., petitioners in No. 473.
Leo Pfeffer for appellants in No. 590.
Robert C. Murphy, Attorney General of Maryland, and Edward L. Blanton, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the Board of Public Works of Maryland, and Parsons Newman for Hood College, appellees in No. 590.
John Holt Myers for the Association of American Colleges, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 473.
Together with No. 590, Horace Mann League of the United States of America, Inc., et al. v. Board of Public Works of Maryland et al., on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 473 is denied. The motion to dismiss in No. 590 is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that in No. 473 certiorari should be granted and the case set for plenary consideration, and that in No. 590 probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for oral argument.