LIVINGSTON v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 281 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
LIVINGSTON v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 281 (1960)
364 U.S. 281 LIVINGSTON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
No. 895.
Decided June 27, 1960.
179 F. Supp. 9, affirmed.
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and James M. Windham and James S. Verner, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Myron C. Baum, Loren K. Olson and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States and the Atomic Energy Commission, appellees.
Hugh K. Clark and W. Graham Claytor, Jr. for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to substitute Harold Murph and Robert C. Wasson in the place of Francis M. Pickney and James W. Crain as parties appellant is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
LIVINGSTON v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 281 (1960)
364 U.S. 281 LIVINGSTON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
No. 895.
Decided June 27, 1960.
179 F. Supp. 9, affirmed.
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and James M. Windham and James S. Verner, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Myron C. Baum, Loren K. Olson and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States and the Atomic Energy Commission, appellees.
Hugh K. Clark and W. Graham Claytor, Jr. for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to substitute Harold Murph and Robert C. Wasson in the place of Francis M. Pickney and James W. Crain as parties appellant is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Page 364 U.S. 281, 282
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.
