Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc.

Supreme Court

Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc.

348 U.S. 945, 75 S. Ct. 436, 99 L. Ed. 740, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1114

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 28, 1955·No. No. 230·Published·Cited by 29 cases

Opinion

[945]*945Certiorari, 348 U. S. 813, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Per Curiam:

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U. S. 564; Phillips Co. v. Walling, 324 U. S. 490. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the District Court. The motion of the petitioner to make Goldblatt Bros., Inc., a party in this Court is denied without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to renew said motion in the District Court, or to take such other proceedings for enforcement of the judgment as the petitioner may deem advisable and proper in the circumstances. See Walling v. Reuter, Inc., 321 U. S. 671.

With her on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Sylvia S. Ellison and Harold S. Saxe. Stanford Clinton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert A. Sprecher.

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

[945]*945Certiorari, 348 U. S. 813, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Per Curiam:

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U. S. 564; Phillips Co. v. Walling, 324 U. S. 490. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the District Court. The motion of the petitioner to make Goldblatt Bros., Inc., a party in this Court is denied without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to renew said motion in the District Court, or to take such other proceedings for enforcement of the judgment as the petitioner may deem advisable and proper in the circumstances. See Walling v. Reuter, Inc., 321 U. S. 671.

With her on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Sylvia S. Ellison and Harold S. Saxe. Stanford Clinton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert A. Sprecher.

Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc., 348 U.S. 945, 75 S. Ct. 436, 99 L. Ed. 740, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1114 (1955).

Pincite

348 U.S. 945 (Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related