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
Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. v. United States et al.
347 U.S. 984·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
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. 685.
Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. v. United States et al.
Roscoe H. Hupper, Odell Kominers, Henry O. Fischer and Mark P. Schlejer for appellant.
Solicitor General Sobeloff and Edward M. Reidy for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; John J. O’Connor, William L. McGovern and Norman Diamond for the Isbrandtsen Co., Inc.; Robert L. Wright for the New Haven Chamber of Commerce; and E. Curtis Rouse for the Richmond Terminal Co., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.