Skip to content


Beck Vs. Mcleod - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number382 U.S. 454
AppellantBeck
RespondentMcleod
Excerpt:
.....beck v. mcleod, 382 u.s. 454 (1966) 382 u.s. 454 beck v. mcleod, attorney general of south carolina. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of south carolina. no. 770. decided january 31, 1966. 240 f. supp. 708, affirmed. samuel c. craven for appellant. daniel r. mcleod, attorney general of south carolina, and everett n. brandon, assistant attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed. page 382 u.s. 454, 455 united states v. wilson & co., inc., 382 u.s. 454 (1966) 382 u.s. 454 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court united states v. wilson & co., inc., 382 u.s. 454 (1966) 382 u.s. 454 united states et al. v. wilson & co., inc., et al. .....
Judgment:
BECK v. McLEOD - 382 U.S. 454 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court BECK v. McLEOD, 382 U.S. 454 (1966) 382 U.S. 454

BECK v. McLEOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 770.
Decided January 31, 1966.

240 F. Supp. 708, affirmed.

Samuel C. Craven for appellant.

Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.

Page 382 U.S. 454, 455


UNITED STATES v. WILSON & CO., INC., <a href="/101473"> 382 U.S. 454 </a> (1966) 382 U.S. 454 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. WILSON & CO., INC., 382 U.S. 454 (1966) 382 U.S. 454

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. WILSON & CO., INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 56.
Decided January 31, 1966.

335 F.2d 788 , remanded.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States et al.

Howard J. Trienens for respondents American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al.

PER CURIAM.

The joint motion of counsel to remand is granted and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in order to permit the entry of a decree of restitution in accordance with the agreement of the parties.




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