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.
Fluor Corp., Ltd., et al. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; Ward Industries Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; and Union Tank Car Co. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co. et al., 1969 — 394 U.S. 1014 · caselaw · US
General
Fluor Corp., Ltd., et al. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; Ward Industries Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; and Union Tank Car Co. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co. et al.
394 U.S. 1014·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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. 1177.
No. 1178.
No. 1179.
Fluor Corp., Ltd., et al. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; Ward Industries Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; and Union Tank Car Co. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co. et al.
Harold C. Warnock for petitioners in No. 1177, R. Graeme Smith for petitioner in No. 1178, and Francis J. McConnell and Robert. A. May for petitioner in No. 1179.
Maurice E. Purnell, Sr., for Mosher Steel Co. in all three cases.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Reported below: 405 F. 2d 823.