General
KRASNOV et al. v. UNITED STATES
355 U.S. 5·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
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
KRASNOV et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 238.
Decided October 14, 1957
C. Brewster Rhoads for appellants in No. 238.
Robert L. Wright and Milton M. Gottesman for appellants in No. 254.
Joseph F. Padlon for appellant in No. 255.
Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Daniel M. Friedman and Joseph F. Tubridy for the United States.
Together with No. 254, Comfy Manufacturing Co. et al. v. United States, and No. 255, Oppenheimer v. United States, also on appeals from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.