Oriolo v. United States

Supreme Court

Oriolo v. United States

324 U.S. 824, 65 S. Ct. 683

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 26, 1945

DocketNo. 727

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 324 U.S. 824 (Oriolo v. United States) 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

Oriolo v. United States, 324 U.S. 824, 65 S. Ct. 683 (1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Mortensen v. United States, 322 U. S. 369.

The [825]*825Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Jackson think that the judgment should be affirmed, the Mortensen case being inapplicable for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below. Mr. Thomas D. McBride for petitioner. Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Tom C. Clark, Messrs. Robert S. Erdahl and Irving S. Shapiro for the United States.

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

Per Curiam:

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Mortensen v. United States, 322 U. S. 369.

The [825]*825Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Jackson think that the judgment should be affirmed, the Mortensen case being inapplicable for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below. Mr. Thomas D. McBride for petitioner. Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Tom C. Clark, Messrs. Robert S. Erdahl and Irving S. Shapiro for the United States.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 U.S. 824, 65 S. Ct. 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oriolo-v-united-states-scotus-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack