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.
Williamson, Attorney General, et al. v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al.; and Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al. v. Williamson, Attorney General, et al., 1954 — 348 U.S. 854 · caselaw · US
General
Williamson, Attorney General, et al. v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al.; and Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al. v. Williamson, Attorney General, et al.
348 U.S. 854·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
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. 184.
No. 185.
Williamson, Attorney General, et al. v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al.; and Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al. v. Williamson, Attorney General, et al.
Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General, and James C. Harkin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants in No. 184.
Duke Duvall, John M. Phillips and Dick H. Woods for appellants in No. 185.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Probable jurisdiction noted.
Reported below: 120 F. Supp. 128.