Contracts · MBE-tested
Marr, doing business as Marr Duplicator Co., v. A. B. Dick Co.
329 U.S. 680·Supreme Court of the United States·1946
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. 504.
Marr, doing business as Marr Duplicator Co., v. A. B. Dick Co.
November 12, 1946.
C. P. Goepel and Edward D. Bolton for petitioner.
Robert W. Byerly and Ralph M. Watson for respondent.
Solicitor General McGrath filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court for consideration of the question, raised by the Solicitor General in his memorandum, as amicus curiae, “whether respondent’s prosecution of the instant case may not constitute a fraud upon the courts.”