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
Ball v. Cook, Superintendent of Banks; and George and Frances Ball Foundation v. Cook, Superintendent of Banks
323 U.S. 761·Supreme Court of the United States·1944
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. 426.
No. 427.
Ball v. Cook, Superintendent of Banks; and George and Frances Ball Foundation v. Cook, Superintendent of Banks.
October 23, 1944.
Messrs. William H. Thompson, Perry E‘.
O’Neal, and John S. Miller for petitioners.
Messrs. Thomas J. Herbert, Attorney General of Ohio, Hubert Hickam, Alan W. Boyd, and JohnB. Putnam for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.