LEE v. PEEK 371 U.S. 184 (1962)

United States Supreme Court

LEE v. PEEK (1962)

No. 426

Decided: December 03, 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. [371 U.S. 184, 185]

PENSICK & GORDON, INC., v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/371/184#">371 U.S. 184 </flCite> (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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law