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
STONE v. UNITED STATES
390 U.S. 204·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of Nos. 9, 14, 77, and 121.
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
STONE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9.
Decided March 4, 1968.
Charles W. Tessmer and Emmett Colvin, Jr., for petitioner in No. 9. William T. Griffin for petitioners in No. 14. Seymour Samuels, Jr., and William B. Willis, Jr., for petitioner in No. 77. Anna R. Jjavin and Richard E. Gorman for petitioner in No. 798. James G. Starkey for petitioner in No. 1024.
Former Solicitor General Marshall for the United States in No. 9. Former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky for the United States in No. 14. Former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States in No. 77. Former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States in No. 121. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Miss Rosenberg for the United States in No. 798. Solicitor General Griswold for the United States in No. 1024.
Together with No. 14, Conti et al. v. United States; No. 77, Ross v. United States; No. 121, Donlon v. United States; No. 798, Angelini v. United States; and No. 1024, Pizzarello v. United States, all on petitions for writs of certiorari. No. 77 is to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos, 14 and 1024 to the Second Circuit, No. 121 to the Third Circuit, and No. 798 to the Seventh Circuit.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments of the courts below are vacated and the cases are remanded for further consideration in the light of Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 39, and Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 62.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of Nos. 9, 14, 77, and 121.