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
Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co., Inc., et al.
361 U.S. 830·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
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. 230.
Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co., Inc., et al.
Rutherford P. Day for petitioner. John P. Smith for Paul Tishman Co., Inc., et al,, and Harold Shapiro for Horn Construction Co., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.