Skip to content


United Shoe Machinery Corp. Vs. U.S. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number347 U.S. 521
AppellantUnited Shoe Machinery Corp.
RespondentU.S.
Excerpt:
united shoe machinery corp. v. u.s. - 347 u.s. 521 (1954) u.s. supreme court united shoe machinery corp. v. u.s., 347 u.s. 521 (1954) 347 u.s. 521 united shoe machinery corp. v. united states. appeal from the united states district court for the district of massachusetts. no. 394. argued april 26-27, 1954. decided may 17, 1954. the case having been fully argued and the court being satisfied that the findings of the district court are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed. 110 f. supp. 295, affirmed. john l. hall, robert proctor and claude r. branch argued the cause for appellant. with them on the brief were walter powers, john b. reigeluth and conrad w. oberdorfer. ralph s. spritzer argued the.....
Judgment:
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. U.S. - 347 U.S. 521 (1954)
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. U.S., 347 U.S. 521 (1954) 347 U.S. 521

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 394.
Argued April 26-27, 1954.
Decided May 17, 1954.

The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings of the District Court are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.

110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed.

John L. Hall, Robert Proctor and Claude R. Branch argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Walter Powers, John B. Reigeluth and Conrad W. Oberdorfer.

Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Marvin E. Frankel, Margaret H. Brass and C. Worth Rowley.

PER CURIAM.

The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE CLARK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 347 U.S. 521, 522




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