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.
Riverdale Cotton Mills, Petitioner, v. Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company et al., 1904 — 193 U.S. 672 · caselaw · US
General
Riverdale Cotton Mills, Petitioner, v. Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company et al.
193 U.S. 672·Supreme Court of the United States·1904
Mr. Thomas H. Watts, Mr. Louis D. Brandéis and Mr. Wm. H. Dunbar for .petitioner. Mr. John T. Morgan and Mr. Marion Erwin for respondents.
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. 595.
Riverdale Cotton Mills, Petitioner, v. Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company et al.
March 21, 1904.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.
Mr. Thomas H. Watts, Mr. Louis D. Brandéis and Mr. Wm. H. Dunbar for .petitioner. Mr. John T. Morgan and Mr. Marion Erwin for respondents.