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.
Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., v. Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, et al., 1957 — 355 U.S. 812 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., v. Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, et al.
355 U.S. 812·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
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. 348.
Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., v. Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, et al.
Roger J. Whiteford and John J. Wilson for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls, Sidney B. Jacoby and Ernest S. Carsten for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted. Counsel are invited to discuss, among other things, the power of the District Court to dismiss, and the propriety of its dismissal of, petitioner’s complaint, under Rule 37 (b)(2) of F. R. C. P., for failure to obey its order, for production of documents, issued under Rule 34 of F. R. C. P., in the absence of evidence and of finding that petitioner “refuses to obey” such order. Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.