Contracts · MBE-tested
Raley et al. v. Ohio
354 U.S. 929·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
Mr. Justice Burton would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. Mr. Justice Clark dissents from this disposition of the case for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Sweezy v. New Hampshire and Watkins v. United States, supra.
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
June 24, 1957.
No. 306.
Raley et al. v. Ohio.
Louis C. Capelle and Morse Johnson for appellants.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in the light of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, and Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178.
Mr. Justice Burton would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. Mr. Justice Clark dissents from this disposition of the case for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Sweezy v. New Hampshire and Watkins v. United States, supra.