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
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY CLUB v. UNITED STATES
50 F.2d 469·United States Court of Claims·1931
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
WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY CLUB v. UNITED STATES.
No. L-224.
Court of Claims.
June 1, 1931.
Allen G. Gartner, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Fred K. Dyan, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This ease is controlled by the decisions of this court in William M. Abbott v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 603; John Fisler v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 220; Faculty Club of the University of California v. United States, 65 Ct. Cl. 754.