BINKS MFG. CO. v. RANSBURG CORP., 366 U.S. 211 (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court
BINKS MFG. CO. v. RANSBURG CORP., 366 U.S. 211 (1961)
366 U.S. 211 BINKS MANUFACTURING CO. v. RANSBURG ELECTRO-COATING CORP.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 501.
Argued May 3-4, 1961.
Decided May 8, 1961.
Certiorari dismissed as not warranted on record.
Reported below: 281 F.2d 252.
W. Donald McSweeney and Charles F. Meroni argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the briefs were Otto R. Krause and John B. Robinson, Jr.
Elbert R. Gilliom argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were James P. Hume and Harry T. Ice.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger and Richard A. Solomon filed a brief for the United States, as amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
U.S. Supreme Court
BINKS MFG. CO. v. RANSBURG CORP., 366 U.S. 211 (1961)
366 U.S. 211 BINKS MANUFACTURING CO. v. RANSBURG ELECTRO-COATING CORP.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 501.
Argued May 3-4, 1961.
Decided May 8, 1961.
Certiorari dismissed as not warranted on record.
Reported below: 281 F.2d 252.
W. Donald McSweeney and Charles F. Meroni argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the briefs were Otto R. Krause and John B. Robinson, Jr.
Elbert R. Gilliom argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were James P. Hume and Harry T. Ice.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger and Richard A. Solomon filed a brief for the United States, as amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
Page 366 U.S. 211, 212
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.
