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.
Neiwirth v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al.; and Starr et al. v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al., 1969 — 396 U.S. 823 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
Neiwirth v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al.; and Starr et al. v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al.
396 U.S. 823·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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. 155.
No. 217.
Neiwirth v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al.; and Starr et al. v. Hydrocarbon Chemicals, Inc., et al.
Max L. Bosenstein for petitioner in No. 155, and Edwin Fradkin, pro se, and for other petitioners in No. 217. Michael B. Griffinger for respondent Clemence, Trustee in Bankruptcy, and Solicitor General Griswold, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber, and Paul Gonson for respondent Securities and Exchange Commission, in both cases.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 411 F. 2d 203.