Case Name: Brandt v. United States; Brack v. United States; Brandt v. United States; Gebhardt v. United States; Hoven v. United States; Mrugowsky v. United States; Sievers v. United States; Fischer v. United States; Genzken v. United States; Handloser v. United States; Rose v. United States; Schroeder v. United States; Becker-Freyseng v. United States; and Beigelboeck v. United States
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1948-02-16
Citations: 333 U.S. 836
Docket Number: No. 286; No. 287; No. 288; No. 289; No. 290; No. 291; No. 292; No. 293; No. 294; No. 295; No. 296; No. 297; No. 298; No. 299
Parties: Brandt v. United States; Brack v. United States; Brandt v. United States; Gebhardt v. United States; Hoven v. United States; Mrugowsky v. United States; Sievers v. United States; Fischer v. United States; Genzken v. United States; Handloser v. United States; Rose v. United States; Schroeder v. United States; Becker-Freyseng v. United States; and Beigelboeck v. United States.
Judges: Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petitions should be set for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 333
Pages: 836–836

Head Matter:
No. 286,
No. 287,
No. 288,
No. 289,
No. 290,
No. 291,
No. 292,
No. 293,
No. 294,
No. 295,
No. 296,
No. 297,
No. 298,
No. 299,
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc,
Misc.
Brandt v. United States; Brack v. United States; Brandt v. United States; Gebhardt v. United States; Hoven v. United States; Mrugowsky v. United States; Sievers v. United States; Fischer v. United States; Genzken v. United States; Handloser v. United States; Rose v. United States; Schroeder v. United States; Becker-Freyseng v. United States; and Beigelboeck v. United States.

Opinion:
Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition denied.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petitions should be set for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.