UNITED STATES v. GIFFORD-HILL-AMERICAN, INC., 397 U.S. 93 (1970)

U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. GIFFORD-HILL-AMERICAN, INC., 397 U.S. 93 (1970)

397 U.S. 93

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. GIFFORD-HILL-AMERICAN, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 515.
Decided February 27, 1970

413 F.2d 1244, vacated and remanded.

Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General McLaren for the United States et al.

Stanley E. Neely for Gifford-Hill-American, Inc., and Julian O. von Kalinowski for United Concrete Pipe Corp., respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the suggestion of mootness filed by the Solicitor General, and upon an examination of the entire record, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the mandamus proceedings as moot.

Page 397 U.S. 93, 94




U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. GIFFORD-HILL-AMERICAN, INC., 397 U.S. 93 (1970)

397 U.S. 93

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. GIFFORD-HILL-AMERICAN, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 515.
Decided February 27, 1970

413 F.2d 1244, vacated and remanded.

Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General McLaren for the United States et al.

Stanley E. Neely for Gifford-Hill-American, Inc., and Julian O. von Kalinowski for United Concrete Pipe Corp., respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the suggestion of mootness filed by the Solicitor General, and upon an examination of the entire record, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the mandamus proceedings as moot.

Page 397 U.S. 93, 94

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.