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.
Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., et al.; and Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Levy et al., doing business as Sherry Frontenac Hotel, et al., 1958 — 358 U.S. 860 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., et al.; and Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Levy et al., doing business as Sherry Frontenac Hotel, et al.
358 U.S. 860·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
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
October 20, 1958.
No. 5.
No. 6.
Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., et al.; and Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Levy et al., doing business as Sherry Frontenac Hotel, et al.
Thomas H. Anderson and Thomas H. Bark-dull, Jr. were on the suggestion of omission for respondents. David E. Feller was on a response for petitioners.
[MAJORITY]
Certiorari, 355 U. S. 902, to the Supreme Court of Florida. Upon consideration of the suggestion of omission of parts of the record from the printed record, the Clerk is directed to print such parts as a supplemental record subject to further order of the Court as to the payment of costs incident thereto. The brief of the respondents is to be filed on or before November 1, and the cases are set for oral argument on November 10, next.
Reported below: 93 So. 2d 591, 598.