Skip to content


U.S. Vs. Acme Process Equipment Company. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 917
AppellantU.S.
RespondentAcme Process Equipment Company.
Excerpt:
u.s. v. acme process equipment company. - 384 u.s. 917 (1966) u.s. supreme court u.s. v. acme process equipment company. , 384 u.s. 917 (1966) 384 u.s. 917 united states, petitioner, v. acme process equipment company. no. 1116. supreme court of the united states april 25, 1966 solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general douglas, david l. rose and robert v. zener, for the united states. jack rephan, raymond r. dickey and bernard gordon, for respondent. petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of claims granted and case placed on the summary calendar.[ u.s. v. acme process equipment company. 384 u.s. 917 (1966) ]
Judgment:
U.S. v. ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY. - 384 U.S. 917 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY. , 384 U.S. 917 (1966)

384 U.S. 917

UNITED STATES, petitioner,
v.
ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
No. 1116.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 25, 1966

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, David L. Rose and Robert V. Zener, for the United States.

Jack Rephan, Raymond R. Dickey and Bernard Gordon, for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Claims granted and case placed on the summary calendar.[ U.S. v. ACME Process Equipment Company. 384 U.S. 917 (1966) ]


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