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.
Philadelphia Company et al. v. Dipple et al., 1941 — 312 U.S. 656 · caselaw · US
General
Philadelphia Company et al. v. Dipple et al.
312 U.S. 656·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
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
Nos. 242 and 243.
Philadelphia Company et al. v. Dipple et al.
February 10, 1941.
[MAJORITY]
Ordered that the opinion in these cases be amended as follows:
In the second full sentence on page 6 of the opinion, strike out the words “the corporate identity of the companies whose lines have gone into this system should be ignored and”, and add after the word “business”, and before the word “treated”, the words “should be”.