Case: 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
Abbreviation: Beauharnais v. Illinois
Decision Date: 1952-06-09
Docket Number: No. 118; No. 717; No. 722; No. 232; No. 472; No. 289; No. 326; No. 427; No. 447
Citation: 343 U.S. 988
Volume: 343
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
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: 
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.