JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 37 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 37 (1966)

385 U.S. 37

JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA. No. 486.
Decided November 7, 1966.

253 F. Supp. 129, affirmed.

Leslie Hodson, Hammond E. Chaffetz, Joseph DuCoeur and Richard J. Archer for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Turner for the United States, and Burnham Enersen and Stephen Grant for General Brewing Corp., appellees.

Godfrey L. Munter, Jr., for Ray et al., as amici curiae, in support of appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of Philip A. Ray et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would set the case for argument.

Page 385 U.S. 37, 38




U.S. Supreme Court

JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 37 (1966)

385 U.S. 37

JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA. No. 486.
Decided November 7, 1966.

253 F. Supp. 129, affirmed.

Leslie Hodson, Hammond E. Chaffetz, Joseph DuCoeur and Richard J. Archer for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Turner for the United States, and Burnham Enersen and Stephen Grant for General Brewing Corp., appellees.

Godfrey L. Munter, Jr., for Ray et al., as amici curiae, in support of appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of Philip A. Ray et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would set the case for argument.

Page 385 U.S. 37, 38

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.