Case Name: Beauharnais v. Illinois; Osborne et al. v. Purdome, Sheriff; Tom's Express, Inc. et al. v. Division of State Highway Patrol, Department of Highways, of Ohio; Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, et al.; Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden; Bowen v. United States; Leviton et al. v. United States; Jones v. City of Norfolk; Skladd v. Michigan
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-06-09
Citations: 343 U.S. 988
Docket Number: No. 118; No. 717; No. 722; No. 232; No. 472; No. 289; No. 326; No. 427; No. 447
Parties: Beauharnais v. Illinois, Osborne et al. v. Purdome, Sheriff, Tom’s Express, Inc. et al. v. Division of State Highway Patrol, Department of Highways, of Ohio, Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, et al., Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, Bowen v. United States, Leviton et al. v. United States, Jones v. City of Norfolk, Skladd v. Michigan,
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 343
Pages: 988–988

Head Matter:
No. 118.
No. 717.
No. 722.
No. 232,
No. 472,
No. 289,
No. 326,
No. 427,
No. 447,
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Mise.
Beauharnais v. Illinois, Osborne et al. v. Purdome, Sheriff, Tom’s Express, Inc. et al. v. Division of State Highway Patrol, Department of Highways, of Ohio, Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, et al., Rutledge v. Hudspeth, Warden, Bowen v. United States, Leviton et al. v. United States, Jones v. City of Norfolk, Skladd v. Michigan,

Opinion:
ante, p. 250;
ante, p. 953;
ante, p. 944;
ante, p. 953;
ante, p. 954;
ante, p. 943;
ante, p. 946;
ante, p. 943; and
ante, p. 951. Petitions for rehearing denied.