Marks Vs. Esperdy

Marks vs Esperdy

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-18-1964

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100900

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/100900
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: May-18-1964
Case Number: 377 U.S. 214
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Marks

Respondent

Esperdy

Excerpt

marks v. esperdy - 377 u.s. 214 (1964) u.s. supreme court marks v. esperdy, 377 u.s. 214 (1964) 377 u.s. 214 marks v. esperdy, district director, immigration and naturalization service. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. no. 253. argued april 2, 1964. decided may 18, 1964. 315 f.2d 673 , affirmed by an equally divided court. murray a. gordon argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. charles gordon argued the cause for respondent. with him on the brief were solicitor general cox, assistant attorney general miller and l. paul winings. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court. mr. justice brennan took no part in the decision of this case. page 377 u.s. 214, 215

Full Judgment

MARKS v. ESPERDY - 377 U.S. 214 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court MARKS v. ESPERDY, 377 U.S. 214 (1964) 377 U.S. 214

MARKS v. ESPERDY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 253.
Argued April 2, 1964.
Decided May 18, 1964.

315 F.2d 673 , affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Murray A. Gordon argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

Charles Gordon argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and L. Paul Winings.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the decision of this case.

Page 377 U.S. 214, 215