Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Clay v. Dominion of Canada

Clay v. Dominion of Can., 238 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1956)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1956-12-07
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. Judgments affirmed in open court. 144 F.Supp. 746.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Clay v. Dominion of Canada. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 4 opinions

CLAY v. DOMINION OF CANADA,238 F.2d 400(2nd Cir. 1956)

William L. CLAY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOMINION OF CANADA,

Defendant. William L. CLAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOMINION OF

CANADA, Defendant. Angelo R. SANTORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HER MAJESTY,

ELIZABETH, as of right QUEEN OF CANADA, and Canada, Defendants. Arthur

SHAUGHNESSY and Anne Shaughnessy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HER MAJESTY,

ELIZABETH, QUEEN OF CANADA, and Canada, Defendants.

Nos. 139-142, Docket 24208-24211.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued December 7, 1956.

Decided December 7, 1956.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York; Stephen W. Brennan, Judge.

John W. Guzzetta, Mount Vernon, N.Y. (William L. Clay, Rochester, N.Y., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Inzer B. Wyatt, New York City (Sullivan Cromwell, New York City, on the brief), for Arnold D.P. Heeney, Ambassador of Canada to United States, as amicus curiæ.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgments affirmed in open court.144 F. Supp. 746.