United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 347 U.S. 521, 98 L. Ed. 2d 910, 74 S. Ct. 699, 98 L. Ed. 910, 1954 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,755, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2745, SCDB 1953-074

Decision Date: 5/17/1954

Docket Number: No. 394

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 347 U.S. 521, 98 L. Ed. 2d 910, 74 S. Ct. 699, 98 L. Ed. 910, 1954 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,755, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2745, SCDB 1953-074 (1954)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1954

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 136 decisions

136

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

S.D.N.Y.12

9th Cir.9

D. Mass.9

1st Cir.8

2d Cir.6

5th Cir.6

Most recently cited by10

2025United States of America v. Google LLC D.D.C.
2025Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc S.D.N.Y.
2021Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Hoffman Instrumentation Supply, Inc. D. Or.
2008Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth 9th Cir.
2007Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth 9th Cir.
2000Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp. 7th Cir.
1995United States v. Microsoft Corp. D.D.C.
1995Heath Consultants, Inc. v. Precision Instruments, Inc. Neb.
1994Allen-Myland, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. 3d Cir.
1994Allen-Myland, Inc. v. Int.nat'l Bus. Mach. Corp 3rd Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v. UNITED STATES.

Judges

Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Attorneys

John L. Hall, Robert Proctor and Claude R. Branch argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Walter Powers, John B. Reigeluth and Conrad W. Oberdorjer.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Marvin E. Frankel, Margaret H. Brass and C. Worth Rowley.

majority Per Curiam.

The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.