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.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Grooms, U. S. District Judge, et al., 1964 — 376 U.S. 901 · caselaw · US
General
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Grooms, U. S. District Judge, et al.
376 U.S. 901·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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
February 12, 1964.
No. 794.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Grooms, U. S. District Judge, et al.
Jesse Climenko, Philip H. Strubing and T. Eric Embry for petitioner. Winston B. McCall, William S. Pritchard and Francis H. Hare for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.