Short v. Ness Produce Co.

385 U.S. 537
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 23, 1967·No. 779, October Term, 1966·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

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

Short v. Ness Produce Co., 385 U.S. 537 (1967).

385 U.S. 537 (Short v. Ness Produce Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2002
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2002
Franssen v. Juras
406 F. Supp. 1375 (D. Oregon, 1975)
Bueno v. Juras
349 F. Supp. 91 (D. Oregon, 1972)
Velma L. Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission
442 F.2d 1119 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission
442 F.2d 1119 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
Sohappy v. Smith
302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon, 1969)
Armour & Co. v. State
270 F. Supp. 941 (D. Nebraska, 1967)
Cunard SS Co. v. Lucci
228 A.2d 719 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)