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

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 28, 1955

DocketNo. 230

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 348 U.S. 945 (Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 U.S. 945, 75 S. Ct. 436, 99 L. Ed. 740, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-joyce-agency-inc-scotus-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack