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.
Wallace v. Fiske et al., 1941 — 314 U.S. 663 · caselaw · US
General
Wallace v. Fiske et al.
314 U.S. 663·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
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
Nos. 121 and 122.
Wallace v. Fiske et al.
October 20, 1941.
Messrs. James C. Jones, Lon O. Hocker, and Frank Y. Gladney for petitioner.
[MAJORITY]
On petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
In No. 122, the petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment entered November 16, 1940, rehearing denied November 27, 1940, is denied on the ground that it was not filed within the time provided by law. 28 U. S. C., § 350. In No. 121, the motion for leave to dispense with the filing and printing of unnecessary portions of the record is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers submitted, finds no ground upon which a writ of certiorari should be issued. The petition for writ of certiorari is therefore also denied.