U.S. v. ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY., 384 U.S. 917 (1966)
Decided:
April 25, 1966
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY. , 384 U.S. 917 (1966)384 U.S. 917
UNITED STATES, petitioner,
v.
ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
No. 1116.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 25, 1966
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, David L. Rose and Robert V. Zener, for the United States.
Jack Rephan, Raymond R. Dickey and Bernard Gordon, for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of
Claims granted and case placed on the summary calendar.[ U.S. v.
ACME Process Equipment Company. 384 U.S. 917 (1966) ]
Opinions
v.
ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
No. 1116. Supreme Court of the United States April 25, 1966 Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, David L. Rose and Robert V. Zener, for the United States. Jack Rephan, Raymond R. Dickey and Bernard Gordon, for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Claims granted and case placed on the summary calendar.[ U.S. v. ACME Process Equipment Company. 384 U.S. 917 (1966) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY. , 384 U.S. 917 (1966) 384 U.S. 917 UNITED STATES, petitioner,v.
ACME PROCESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
No. 1116. Supreme Court of the United States April 25, 1966 Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, David L. Rose and Robert V. Zener, for the United States. Jack Rephan, Raymond R. Dickey and Bernard Gordon, for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Claims granted and case placed on the summary calendar.[ U.S. v. ACME Process Equipment Company. 384 U.S. 917 (1966) ]
Search This Case
