Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Hohensee v. Watson

283 F.2d 950

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1960-09-22
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The lack of merit of the plaintiff’s complaint was adequately set out by the district judge and no further discussion is necessary. 188 F.Supp. 941. The judgment will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hohensee v. Watson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 1 opinion

HOHENSEE v. WATSON,283 F.2d 950(3rd Cir. 1960)

Mildred HOHENSEE, Richard Roe No. 1, Richard Roe No. 2, Mildred Hohensee,

Appellant v. Albert L. WATSON; American Medical Association, its Officers

and Members; John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No.

4; J. Julius Levy; George Clark; Stephen Teller; John Doe No. 1; John Doe

No. 2; John Doe No. 3.

No. 13116.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued September 13, 1960.

Decided September 22, 1960.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Frederick V. Follmer, Judge.

James C. Newton, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Joseph C. Kreder, Scranton, Pa. (Warren, Hill, Henkelman McMenamin, Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for George Clark, appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The lack of merit of the plaintiff's complaint was adequately set out by the district judge and no further discussion is necessary.188 F. Supp. 941.

The judgment will be affirmed.Page 951Page 70