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.
Jungersen v. Baden et al.; Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. et al.; and Ostby & Barton Co. et al. v. Jungersen, 1948 — 334 U.S. 835 · caselaw · US
General
Jungersen v. Baden et al.; Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. et al.; and Ostby & Barton Co. et al. v. Jungersen
334 U.S. 835·Supreme Court of the United States·1948
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
June 7, 1948.
No. 776.
No. 467.
No. 468.
Jungersen v. Baden et al.; Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. et al.; and Ostby & Barton Co. et al. v. Jungersen.
[MAJORITY]
In No. 776 the petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is granted. In Nos. 467 and 468 the motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing are granted and the petitions for rehearing are granted. The orders entered January 12, 1948, denying certiorari, 332 U. S. 851, 852, are vacated and the petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are granted.
William H. Davis for petitioner in Nos. 467 and 776. John Vaughan Groner for petitioners in No. 468 and respondents in No. 467.