Skip to content


Lee Vs. Peek - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number371 U.S. 184
AppellantLee
RespondentPeek
Excerpt:
.....is denied. page 371 u.s. 184, 185 pensick & gordon, inc., v. california motor express, 371 u.s. 184 (1962) 371 u.s. 184 (1962) "> u.s. supreme court pensick & gordon, inc., v. california motor express, 371 u.s. 184 (1962) 371 u.s. 184 pensick & gordon, inc., v. california motor express et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. no. 222. decided december 3, 1962. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: 302 f.2d 391 . carl m. gould for petitioner. theodore w. russell, george l. catlin and joseph p. loeb for respondents. per curiam. the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. the.....
Judgment:
LEE v. PEEK - 371 U.S. 184 (1962)
U.S. Supreme Court LEE v. PEEK, 371 U.S. 184 (1962) 371 U.S. 184

LEE v. PEEK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 426.
Decided December 3, 1962.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 240 S. C. 203, 125 S. E. 2d 353.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 371 U.S. 184, 185


PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS, <a href="/100225"> 371 U.S. 184 </a> (1962) 371 U.S. 184 (1962) "> U.S. Supreme Court PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS, 371 U.S. 184 (1962) 371 U.S. 184

PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 222.
Decided December 3, 1962.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 302 F.2d 391 .

Carl M. Gould for petitioner.

Theodore W. Russell, George L. Catlin and Joseph P. Loeb for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., ante, p. 84.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE would affirm the judgment below for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Hewitt-Robins.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //