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.
City of Coral Gables v. Wright, doing business as Ed. C. Wright & Co., et al., 1944 — 321 U.S. 753 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
City of Coral Gables v. Wright, doing business as Ed. C. Wright & Co., et al.
321 U.S. 753·Supreme Court of the United States·1944
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. 388.
City of Coral Gables v. Wright, doing business as Ed. C. Wright & Co., et al.
Argued February 10, 11, 1944.
Decided March 13, 1944.
Messrs. Morton B. Adams and Ira C. Haycock, with whom Mr. D. H. Redfearn was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Miller Walton for Ed. C. Wright and Mr. F. A. Berry for the American National Bank of Nashville,—respondents. Mr. W. Terry Gibson filed a brief, as amicus curiae, in support of respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Certiorari, 320 U. S. 729, to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Me. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.