UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. U.S., 347 U.S. 521 (1954)
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. U.S., 347 U.S. 521 (1954)
347 U.S. 521 UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 394.
Argued April 26-27, 1954.
Decided May 17, 1954.
The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings of the District Court are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.
110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed.
John L. Hall, Robert Proctor and Claude R. Branch argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Walter Powers, John B. Reigeluth and Conrad W. Oberdorfer.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Marvin E. Frankel, Margaret H. Brass and C. Worth Rowley.
PER CURIAM.
The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE CLARK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. U.S., 347 U.S. 521 (1954)
347 U.S. 521 UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 394.
Argued April 26-27, 1954.
Decided May 17, 1954.
The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings of the District Court are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.
110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed.
John L. Hall, Robert Proctor and Claude R. Branch argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Walter Powers, John B. Reigeluth and Conrad W. Oberdorfer.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Marvin E. Frankel, Margaret H. Brass and C. Worth Rowley.
PER CURIAM.
The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE CLARK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
