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.
HOLT et al. v. ALLEGHANY CORP. et al., 1966 — 384 U.S. 28 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
HOLT et al. v. ALLEGHANY CORP. et al.
384 U.S. 2816 L. Ed. 2d 335·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Mr. Justice Black dissents from dismissal of the writs and would reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and district courts substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Friendly’s dissent in the Court of Appeals, 333 F. 2d 327, 338. · Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent from the dismissal of the writs, believing that these cases having been taken for review should be adjudicated on the merits. · Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
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
HOLT et al. v. ALLEGHANY CORP. et al.
No. 131.
Argued March 21, 1966.
Decided April 18, 1966.
Stuart N. Updike argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs were Lee W. Meyer, Ronald S. Daniels and Richard J. Barnes.
Mark F. Hughes and Walter R. Mansfield argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With Mr. Hughes on the brief for respondent Alleghany Corp. were Allan F. Conwill and Vincent R. FitzPatrick. With Mr. Mansfield on the briefs for respondent Allan P. Kirby were Eugene V. Rostow and Breck P. McAllister; for respondent Fred M. Kirby were John E. Tobin and Ben Vinar; and for respondent Ireland were Eugene V. Rostow and John J. McCann.
Simon V. Haberman filed a brief for Randolph Phillips in No. 132, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Together with No. 132, Holt et al. v. Kirby et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The writs of certiorari are dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Black dissents from dismissal of the writs and would reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and district courts substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Friendly’s dissent in the Court of Appeals, 333 F. 2d 327, 338.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent from the dismissal of the writs, believing that these cases having been taken for review should be adjudicated on the merits.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.