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.
Burlington County Bridge Commission et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; Nongard et al., trading as Ketcham & Nongard, et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; and Bell v. Driscoll, Governor, et al., 1952 — 344 U.S. 888 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Burlington County Bridge Commission et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; Nongard et al., trading as Ketcham & Nongard, et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; and Bell v. Driscoll, Governor, et al.
344 U.S. 888·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
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. 137.
No. 184.
No. 188.
Burlington County Bridge Commission et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; Nongard et al., trading as Ketcham & Nongard, et al. v. Driscoll, Governor; and Bell v. Driscoll, Governor, et al.,
[MAJORITY]
ante, p. 838. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.