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.
Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., et al. v. United States et al., 1938 — 305 U.S. 567 · caselaw · US
General
Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
305 U.S. 567·Supreme Court of the United States·1938
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. 410.
Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
Decided November 7, 1938.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The decree is affirmed. Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U. S. 302; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 235, 238; Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. United States ex rel. Campbell, 289 U. S. 385, 388; United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226, 233, 234.
Messrs. Henry T. Ivers and George E. Flood for appellants.
Mr. Edward M. Reidy for appellees.