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.
United States v. Republic Steel Corp. et al., 1959 — 359 U.S. 1010 · caselaw · US
General
United States v. Republic Steel Corp. et al.
359 U.S. 1010·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
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. 859.
United States v. Republic Steel Corp. et al.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Morton and Roger P. Marquis for the United States.
Paul R. Con-aghan for Republic Steel Corp., Peter A. Dammann for International Harvester Co., and Raymond T. Jackson, Warren Daane and Henry E. Seyfarth for Interlake Iron Corp., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.