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.
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Commonwealth Edison Co. et al., 1964 — 376 U.S. 939 · caselaw · US
General
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Commonwealth Edison Co. et al.
376 U.S. 939·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. 789.
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Commonwealth Edison Co. et al.
John Paul Stevens, Edward R. Johnston, Holmes Baldridge, Sydney O. Craig, Charles M. Price, Robert C. Keck, Owen Rail, Earl E. Pollock, John T. Chadwell, Richard M. Keck, Jean Engstrom, W. Donald McSweeney, Edward R. Adams, Harold T. Halfpenny, Hammond E. Chaffetz and William H. Van Oosterhout for petitioners. Charles A. Bane for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.