General
Murphey et al. v. Reed et al., doing business as M. T. Reed Construction Co.
335 U.S. 865·Supreme Court of the United States·1948
Mr. Justice Rutledge is of the opinion that the case as a whole should be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in view of the decision of this Court in Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U. S. 249. Dissenting: Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Murphy.
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
November 15, 1948.
No. 206.
Murphey et al. v. Reed et al., doing business as M. T. Reed Construction Co.
Webb M. Mize for petitioners. Charles S. Corben for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgments below are vacated and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss those causes of action involving solely construction work, and to reconsider the remaining causes of action in the light of the decision of this Court in Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U. S. 249.
Mr. Justice Rutledge is of the opinion that the case as a whole should be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in view of the decision of this Court in Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U. S. 249. Dissenting: Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Murphy.