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

Reichelderfer v. Quinn

Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 53 F.2d 1079 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-12-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. It is agreed by counsel that the issue presented in this appeal and also the parties involved are identical with those appearing in Quinn et al. v. Dougherty et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia, decided by this court January 7, 3929, 58 App. D. C. 339, 30 F.(2d) 749.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
REICHELDERFER v. QUINN,53 F.2d 1079(D.C. Cir. 1931)
Luther H. REICHELDERFER, Herbert B. Crosby, and John C. Gotwals,
Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellants, v. Henry I. QUINN,
George J. Mueller, Jr., Henry Orth, Jr., et al., Appellees.
No. 5230.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted November 6, 1931.
Decided December 7, 1931.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
William W. Bride and Robert E. Lynch, both of Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Henry I. Quinn and George E. Sullivan, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
It is agreed by counsel that the issue presented in this appeal and also the parties involved are identical with those appearing in Quinn et al. v. Dougherty et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia, decided by this court January 7, 1929,58 App. D.C. 339,30 F.2d 749. It is only necessary now to say that, consistently with our decision in the former case, we affirm the decree of the lower court herein appealed from.

Affirmed.Page 314