Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

United States Vs. Haley

United States vs Haley

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Feb-24-1959
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99737

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
358 U.S. 644
Subject
FERA

Case Summary

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

FERA

Key legal issue
FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Haley

Excerpt

united states v. haley - 358 u.s. 644 (1959) u.s. supreme court united states v. haley, 358 u.s. 644 (1959) 358 u.s. 644 united states v. haley. appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of texas. no. 587. decided february 24, 1959. 166 f. supp. 336, reversed. solicitor general rankin, assistant attorney general hansen, charles h. weston, r. l. farrington, neil brooks and donald a. campbell for the united states. william f. billings, james p. donovan and daniel l. o'connor for appellee. per curiam. the judgment is reversed. wickard v. filburn, 317 u.s. 111 . landman v. miedzinski, 358 u.s. 644 (1959) 358 u.s. 644 (1959) "> u.s. supreme court landman v. miedzinski, 358 u.s. 644 (1959) 358 u.s. 644 landman et al. v. miedzinski, sheriff, et al. appeal from the court of appeals of maryland. no. 589. decided february 24, 1959. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 218 md. 3, 145 a. 2d 220. f. joseph donohue and harold c. faulkner for appellants. c. ferdinand sybert, attorney general of maryland, stedman prescott, jr., deputy attorney general, and james h. norris, jr. for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 358 u.s. 644, 645

Full Judgment

UNITED STATES v. HALEY - 358 U.S. 644 (1959)
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. HALEY, 358 U.S. 644 (1959) 358 U.S. 644

UNITED STATES v. HALEY.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS. No. 587.
Decided February 24, 1959.

166 F. Supp. 336, reversed.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, R. L. Farrington, Neil Brooks and Donald A. Campbell for the United States.

William F. Billings, James P. Donovan and Daniel L. O'Connor for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 .


LANDMAN v. MIEDZINSKI, <a href="/99737"> 358 U.S. 644 </a> (1959) 358 U.S. 644 (1959) "> U.S. Supreme Court LANDMAN v. MIEDZINSKI, 358 U.S. 644 (1959) 358 U.S. 644

LANDMAN ET AL. v. MIEDZINSKI, SHERIFF, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 589.
Decided February 24, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 218 Md. 3, 145 A. 2d 220.

F. Joseph Donohue and Harold C. Faulkner for appellants.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland, Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Norris, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 358 U.S. 644, 645



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial