Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Gidney v. Commercial State Bank

Gidney v. Commercial State Bank, 278 F.2d 871 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1960)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1960-05-12
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. We agree in general with the opinion of Judge Youngdahl in the District Court. Commercial State Bank of Roseville v. Gidney, 174 F.Supp. 770. The appealed judgment is therefore Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gidney v. Commercial State Bank. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 30 opinions

GIDNEY v. COMMERCIAL STATE BANK OF ROSEVILLE,278 F.2d 871(D.C. Cir. 1960)

Ray M. GIDNEY, Comptroller of the Currency, Appellant v. COMMERCIAL STATE

BANK OF ROSEVILLE, State Bank of Fraser, Appellees.

No. 15435.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 25, 1960.

Decided May 12, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 3, 1960.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Luther W. Youngdahl, District Judge.

Mr. John G. Laughlin, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Samuel D. Slade, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant.Page 872

Mr. N. Barr Miller, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. J. Marvin Haynes and Joseph H. Sheppard, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We agree in general with the opinion of Judge Youngdahl in the District Court. Commercial State Bank of Roseville v. Gidney,174 F. Supp. 770. The appealed judgment is therefore

Affirmed.