LIVINGSTON v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 281 (1960)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

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

 


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

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

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.