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.
Franklin et al. v. United States, 1939 — 308 U.S. 516 · caselaw · US
General
Franklin et al. v. United States
308 U.S. 516·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 27.
Franklin et al. v. United States.
Argued November 7, 1939.
Decided November 13, 1939.
Mr. Sam C.osten Submitted for petitioners. Mr. Warner W. Gardner, with whom Solicitor General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Paul A. Sweeney and Aaron B. Holman were on the brief, for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed upon the ground that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Judicial Code, § 24 (20); -28 U. S. C. § 41 (20). See Otis Elevator Co. v. United States, 18 F. Supp. 87 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.).