MORTON SALT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 44 (1965)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

MORTON SALT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 44 (1965)

382 U.S. 44

MORTON SALT CO. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
No. 275.
Decided October 25, 1965.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 276, Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. United States, also on appeal from the same court.

Affirmed.

L. M. McBride and John P. Ryan, Jr., for appellant in No. 275. R. William Rogers for appellant in No. 276.

Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Turner and Robert B. Hummel for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 493, 494; Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 221-227; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-810; Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 540-542.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 382 U.S. 44, 45

 


U.S. Supreme Court

MORTON SALT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 44 (1965)

382 U.S. 44

MORTON SALT CO. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
No. 275.
Decided October 25, 1965.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 276, Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. United States, also on appeal from the same court.

Affirmed.

L. M. McBride and John P. Ryan, Jr., for appellant in No. 275. R. William Rogers for appellant in No. 276.

Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Turner and Robert B. Hummel for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 493, 494; Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 221-227; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-810; Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 540-542.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 382 U.S. 44, 45

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.