Moore v. Mead Service Co.

340 U.S. 944
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 12, 1951·No. No. 294,·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The petition for writ [945] of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in the light of Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, ante, p. 211.

Dee C. Blythe for petitioner. Edward W. Napier, Howard F. Houk and Leslie Humphrey for respondents.

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

Moore v. Mead Service Co., 340 U.S. 944 (1951).

340 U.S. 944 (Moore v. Mead Service Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Charles Pfizer & Co.
235 F. Supp. 743 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1964)
John J. & Warren H. Graham v. Triangle Publications, Inc.
233 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1964)
H. & A. Selmer, Inc. v. Musical Instrument Exchange, Inc.
154 F. Supp. 697 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Co.
348 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court, 1955)
Interborough News Co. v. Curtis Pub. Co.
108 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. New York, 1952)
Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co.
107 F. Supp. 595 (S.D. New York, 1952)