Supreme Court of the United States, 1956

Riverbank Laboratories v. Hardwood Products Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 2, 1956 · No. 66 · Consideration, Took

350 U.S. 1003; 76 S. Ct. 648; 100 L. Ed. 866; 1956 U.S. LEXIS 1167 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Maurice Rosenfield argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Philip B. Kurland and Jack H. Oppenheim. David A. Fox argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Gerrit P. Groen and Roger Sherman Hoar.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.

Twin City Scenic Co. v. Flambeau Plastics Corp. (D. Minn. 1960)
Ludwig v. General Binding Corp. (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1957)
Chandler Leasing Co. v. Trus Joist Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)
Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc. (2d Cir. 1960)
Jacobson v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1958)
Garbe v. HUMISTON-KEELING AND COMPANY (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1956)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Certiorari, 350 U. S. 817, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argued January 16, 1956. Decided April 2, 1956.

Per Curiam:

The Court is of the opinion that the District Court correctly found there was proper service upon the defendant in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that Court for further proceedings.*

Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

As amended by order entered April 9, 1956, post, p. 1012.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.