SEETA ARRINGTON AND WILLIAM ROY ARRINGTON, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CLINTON K. ROBERTSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
SEETA ARRINGTON AND WILLIAM ROY ARRINGTON, PLAINTIFFS,
CLINTON K. ROBERTSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
119 F.2d 1022
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1941)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is the second appeal in this litigation to this court. See Arrington v. Robertson, 3 Cir., 1940, 114 F.2d 821. We have examined the testimony herein fully and conclude that no substantial question is involved in this appeal and that we should not be justified in filling the space involved in printing the demonstration of that fact.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic OF Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1945)
-
Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc., 166 F.2d 690 (2d Cir. 1948)
-
Larson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 134 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1943)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arrington v. Robertson, 114 F.2d 821 (3d Cir. 1940)