Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Willheim v. Murchison

Willheim v. Murchison, 312 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1963)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1963-01-18
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. We hold that the case is governed by Fleischer v. Phillips, 2 Cir., 264 F.2d 515, cert. denied 359 U.S. 1002, 79 S.Ct. 1139, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030, and Marco v. Dulles, 2 Cir., 268 F.2d 192, and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Citator

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

Cited by
5 opinions
WILLHEIM v. MURCHISON,312 F.2d 399(2nd Cir. 1963)
Else WILLHEIM and Randolph Phillips, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John D.
MURCHISON and Clint W. Murchison, Jr., co-partners d/b/a Murchison
Brothers; Investors Diversified Services, Inc.; and Investors Mutual,
Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 191, Docket 27806.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued January 10, 1963.
Decided January 18, 1963.
Samuel E. Gates, of Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons Gates, New York City (J. Edward Fowler, Robert L. King, and J. Asa Rountree, of Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons Gates, New York City, on the brief for appellant Investors Diversified Services, Inc.; Taggart Whipple, Philip C. Potter, Jr., and Roland W. Donnem, of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland Kiendl, New York City, on the brief for appellant Investors Mutual, Inc.; and Stuart N. Updike and Lee W. Meyer, of Townley, Updike, Carter Rodgers, New York City, on the brief for appellants John D. Murchison and Clint W. Murchison, Jr.), for defendants-appellants.

Randolph Phillips, pro se, and Leonard I. Schreiber, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before CLARK, KAUFMAN, and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We hold that the case is governed by Fleischer v. Phillips, 2 Cir.,264 F.2d 515, cert. denied359 U.S. 1002, 79 S.Ct. 1139, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030, and Marco v. Dulles, 2 Cir.,268 F.2d 192, and accordingly dismiss the appeal.Page 400