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.
Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. v. Pensick & Gordon, Inc.; and Pensick & Gordon, Inc., v. California Motor Express et al., 1964 — 375 U.S. 984 · caselaw · US
General
Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. v. Pensick & Gordon, Inc.; and Pensick & Gordon, Inc., v. California Motor Express et al.
375 U.S. 984·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 625.
No. 645.
Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. v. Pensick & Gordon, Inc.; and Pensick & Gordon, Inc., v. California Motor Express et al.
George L. Catlin and Theodore W. Russell for petitioners in No. 625 and for California Motor Express et al., respondents in No. 645. Carl M. Gould for Pensick & Gordon, Inc. Harry J. Keaton for Pacific Intermountain Express et al., respondents in No. 645.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.