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.
Hills et al. v. Eisenhart et al.; O'Rourke et al. v. Sill et al.; Curry v. Ragan et al.; Papworth v. United States; Ruby et ux. v. Bowlus, 1958 — 358 U.S. 914 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hills et al. v. Eisenhart et al.; O'Rourke et al. v. Sill et al.; Curry v. Ragan et al.; Papworth v. United States; Ruby et ux. v. Bowlus
358 U.S. 914·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
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. 232.
No. 333.
No. 101,
Misc.
No. 154,
Misc.
No. 216,
Misc.
Hills et al. v. Eisenhart et al., O'Rourke et al. v. Sill et al., Curry v. Ragan et al., Papworth v. United States, Ruby et ux. v. Bowlus,
[MAJORITY]
ante, p. 832;
ante, p. 841 ;
ante, p. 851 ;
ante, p. 854; and
ante, p. 856. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.