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.
Ellis, Receiver, v. Cates; Loew's, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States, 1950 — 340 U.S. 857 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Ellis, Receiver, v. Cates; Loew's, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States
340 U.S. 857·Supreme Court of the United States·1950
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
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. 739,
No. 844,
No. 845,
No. 846,
October Term, 1949.
October Term, 1949.
October Term, 1949.
October Term, 1949.
Ellis, Receiver, v. Cates, Loew’s, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States,
[MAJORITY]
339 U. S. 964. Rehearing denied.
339 U. S. 974. The petitions for rehearing are denied.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.