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.
Manton v. United States; and Spector v. Same, 1940 — 309 U.S. 664 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Manton v. United States; and Spector v. Same
309 U.S. 664·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of these applications.
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. 645.
Manton v. United States; and Spector v. Same.
No. 646.
February 26, 1940.
Messrs. William E. Leahy and William J. Hughes, Jr. for petitioner in No. 645.
Mr. Harry E. Ratner for petitioner in No. 646.
Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney .General Rogge, and Messrs. John T. Cahill, William W. Barron, George F. Kneip, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of these applications.