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.
Camarato v. United States, 1940 — 311 U.S. 651 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Camarato v. United States
311 U.S. 651·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of this application.
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. 135.
Camarato v. United States.
October 14, 1940.
Messrs. William E. Leahy, William J. Hughes, Jr., James F. Reilly, and Frederic M. Pi-Pearse for petitioner. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. James Pi O’Brien, George F. Kneip and W. Marvin Smith for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of this application.