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.
Hunter v. Texas Electric Railway Co., 1947 — 332 U.S. 827 · caselaw · US
General
Hunter v. Texas Electric Railway Co.
332 U.S. 827·Supreme Court of the United States·1947
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. 18.
Hunter v. Texas Electric Railway Co.
Argued October 15, 1947.
Decided November 24, 1947.
Ralph Elliott argued the cause for petitioner.
Spearman Webb and F. Neilson Rogers filed a brief for petitioner.
Alexander Gullett argued the cause for respondent.
Joseph A. Keith filed a brief for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. Dissenting: Mr. .Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice Rutledge.