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.
BURNHAM VAN SERVICE et al. v. PENTECOST et al., 1965 — 382 U.S. 106 · caselaw · US
General
BURNHAM VAN SERVICE et al. v. PENTECOST et al.
382 U.S. 106·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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
BURNHAM VAN SERVICE et al. v. PENTECOST et al.
No. 494.
Decided November 15, 1965.
J. G. Lackey, Jr., for appellants.
George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Milton P. Rice, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.