Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnet

Supreme Court

Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnet

282 U.S. 830, 51 S. Ct. 89

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnet. Read the opinion of the Court — 283 U.S. 799 →

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 24, 1930·No. No. 457·Published

Opinion

In view of the conflict of decisions appearing since the .former order of this Court, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, granted. The order heretofore entered on October 20,1930, denying the petition for writ of certiorari [831] herein is vacated and it is ordered that the petition for writ of certiorari in this case be, and the same is hereby, granted.

Mr. Wm. S. Moorhead for petitioner. Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Young-quist and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Sewall Key, John Henry McEvers, W. Marvin Smith, and Clarence M. Charest for respondent..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In view of the conflict of decisions appearing since the .former order of this Court, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, granted. The order heretofore entered on October 20,1930, denying the petition for writ of certiorari [831] herein is vacated and it is ordered that the petition for writ of certiorari in this case be, and the same is hereby, granted.

Mr. Wm. S. Moorhead for petitioner. Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Young-quist and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Sewall Key, John Henry McEvers, W. Marvin Smith, and Clarence M. Charest for respondent..

Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnet, 282 U.S. 830, 51 S. Ct. 89 (1930).

Pincite

282 U.S. 830 (Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.