Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

F. Palicio Y Compania, S. A. v. Brush

375 F.2d 1011

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-04-26
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Having considered the various points raised by plaintiffs-appellants-appellees and defendants-appellants-appellees, we are of the opinion that Judge Bryan’s discussion of the facts and his analysis and application of the law are correct; we therefore affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion reported at 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1966).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed F. Palicio Y Compania, S. A. v. Brush. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
PALICIO Y COMPANIA v. BRUSH,375 F.2d 1011(2nd Cir. 1967)
F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S.A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S.A.,
Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra,
S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe
Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of
Brush Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
No. 415, Docket 30984.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1967.
Decided April 26, 1967.
Cross Appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Frederick van Pelt Bryan, allowing the attorneys representing certain Cuban "interventors," agents of the Cuban government who intervened in five Cuban businesses, to control actions in the names of the five businesses for the price of cigars delivered to certain United States importers, but allowing the attorneys for the original owners of the five businesses to control actions against the same importers for trade mark infringement.
Leonard B. Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz Boudin, New York City, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants-appellees.

Jac M. Wolff, New York City (Brush Bloch, New York City, Monroe Percy Bloch, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants-appellees.
Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Having considered the various points raised by plaintiffs-appellants-appellees and defendants-appellants-appellees, we are of the opinion that Judge Bryan's discussion of the facts and his analysis and application of the law are correct; we therefore affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion reported at256 F. Supp. 481(S.D.N Y 1966).Page 113