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.
Cavicchi, doing business as Wade Button Co., v. Mohawk Manufacturing Co., Inc., 1939 — 308 U.S. 522 · caselaw · US
General
Cavicchi, doing business as Wade Button Co., v. Mohawk Manufacturing Co., Inc.
308 U.S. 522·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. 503.
Cavicchi, doing business as Wade Button Co., v. Mohawk Manufacturing Co., Inc.
December 11, 1939.
Mr. Alan N. Mann for appellant. Mr, David M. Palley entered an appearance for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U. S. 109; New Marshall Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U. S. 473, 478; Geneva Furniture Co. v. Karpen, 238 U. S. 254, 259.