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.

Ford Motor Co. Vs. Pace

Ford Motor Co. vs Pace

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Nov-21-1960
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99790

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
364 U.S. 444
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

Ford Motor Co.

Respondent

Pace

Excerpt

ford motor co. v. pace - 364 u.s. 444 (1960) u.s. supreme court ford motor co. v. pace, 364 u.s. 444 (1960) 364 u.s. 444 ford motor co. v. pace et al. appeal from the supreme court of tennessee. no. 431. decided november 21, 1960. appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question. reported below: 206 tenn. 559, 335 s. w. 2d 360. william t. gossett, l. homer surbeck and cecil sims for appellant. k. harland dodson, jr. for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question. dart drug corp. of maryland v. gadol, 364 u.s. 444 (1960) 364 u.s. 444 (1960) "> u.s. supreme court dart drug corp. of maryland v. gadol, 364 u.s. 444 (1960) 364 u.s. 444 dart drug corp. of maryland et al. v. gadol et al., doing business as four corners pharmacy. appeal from the court of appeals of maryland. no. 435. decided november 21, 1960. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 222 md. 372, 161 a. 2d 122. milton m. gottesman for appellants. joseph s. kaufman and stedman prescott, jr. for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 364 u.s. 444, 445

Full Judgment

FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE - 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE, 364 U.S. 444 (1960) 364 U.S. 444

FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 431.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Reported below: 206 Tenn. 559, 335 S. W. 2d 360.

William T. Gossett, L. Homer Surbeck and Cecil Sims for appellant.

K. Harland Dodson, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, <a href="/99790"> 364 U.S. 444 </a> (1960) 364 U.S. 444 (1960) "> U.S. Supreme Court DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, 364 U.S. 444 (1960) 364 U.S. 444

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. GADOL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
FOUR CORNERS PHARMACY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 435.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 222 Md. 372, 161 A. 2d 122.

Milton M. Gottesman for appellants.

Joseph S. Kaufman and Stedman Prescott, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 364 U.S. 444, 445



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial