Contracts · MBE-tested
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
313 U.S. 547·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of this case. Mr. Justice Black dissents.
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. 2,
No. 3,
No. 4,
original.
original.
original.
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
Argued May 2, 5, 1941.
Decided May 26, 1941.
Mr. Albert J. Meserow, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, with whom Messrs. George F. Barrett, Attorney General, and William C. Clausen, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief for the State of Illinois. Messrs. Herbert H. Naujoks, Timothy F. Cohan, Assistant Attorney General of New York, and Thomas J. Herbert, Attorney General of Ohio, with whom Messrs. John E. Martin, Attorney General of Wisconsin, J. A. A. Burnquist, Attorney General of Minnesota, Claude T. Reno, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Harrington Adams, Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Herbert J. Rushton, Attorney General of Michigan, James W. Williams,- Assistant Attorney General of Michigan, and John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney General of New York, were on the brief; for complainants.
See 311 U. S. 107.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The exceptions to the report of the Special Master are overruled and the report is confirmed. The petition and the modified petition of the State of Illinois are dismissed with costs.
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of this case. Mr. Justice Black dissents.