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.
Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al., 1964 — 379 U.S. 810 · caselaw · US
General
Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al.
379 U.S. 810·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 360.
Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Vii6inia, Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph C. Carter, Jr., and E. Milton Farley III for appellants. L. S. Parsons, Jr., and H. E. Widen'er, Jr., for appellees.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Probable jurisdiction noted.