Contracts · MBE-tested

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN et al. v. UNITED STATES

382 U.S. 15915 L. Ed. 2d 227·Supreme Court of the United States·1964

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court’s order. · Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN et al. v. UNITED STATES. No. 345, October Term, 1964. Theodore E. Wolcott for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, former Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander, Nathan Lewin and David L. Bose for the United States. Louis G. Davidson, Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr., and Peter J. McBreen, as amici curiae, urging reversal. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand for trial on unresolved issues are granted as herein indicated. The judgment of this Court of May 3, 1965, 381 U. S. 41, is vacated, and in lieu thereof the following judgment is entered; “The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is modified to direct that the case be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in petitioners’ bill of complaint, and is in all other respects affirmed.” R ü SQ Qrdered Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court’s order. Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.