General
Beauharnais v. Illinois; Osborne et al. v. Purdome, Sheriff; Tom's Express, Inc. et al. v. Division of State Highway Patrol, Department of Highways, of Ohio; Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, et al.; Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden; Bowen v. United States; Leviton et al. v. United States; Jones v. City of Norfolk; Skladd v. Michigan
343 U.S. 988·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
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. 118.
No. 717.
No. 722.
No. 232,
No. 472,
No. 289,
No. 326,
No. 427,
No. 447,
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Beauharnais v. Illinois, Osborne et al. v. Purdome, Sheriff, Tom’s Express, Inc. et al. v. Division of State Highway Patrol, Department of Highways, of Ohio, Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, et al., Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, Bowen v. United States, Leviton et al. v. United States, Jones v. City of Norfolk, Skladd v. Michigan,
[MAJORITY]
ante, p. 250;
ante, p. 953;
ante, p. 944;
ante, p. 953;
ante, p. 954;
ante, p. 943;
ante, p. 946;
ante, p. 943; and
ante, p. 951. Petitions for rehearing denied.