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.
Hiland Dairy, Inc., et al. v. Kroger Co., 1969 — 395 U.S. 961 · caselaw · US
General
Hiland Dairy, Inc., et al. v. Kroger Co.
395 U.S. 961·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
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. 986.
Hiland Dairy, Inc., et al. v. Kroger Co.
Gray L. Dorsey, Lynn C. Paulson, and Edward F. O’Herin for petitioners.
Norman Diamond for respondent.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Mc-Laren, Lawrence G. Wallace, and Howard E. Shapiro filed a memorandum for the United States as amicus curiae, by invitation of the Court, 394 U. S. 903.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.