Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Henderson v. Arundel Corp.

Henderson v. Arundel Corp., 384 F.2d 998 (4th Cir. 1967)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-11-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: We affirm on the opinion of the district court. Henderson v. Arundel Corporation, 262 F.Supp. 152 (D.Md.1966). Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Henderson v. Arundel Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
HENDERSON v. ARUNDEL CORPORATION,384 F.2d 998(4th Cir. 1967)
Charlie L. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The ARUNDEL CORPORATION, a body
corporate, Appellee. Charlie L. HENDERSON, Appellee, v. The ARUNDEL
CORPORATION, Appellant. Peter BERSHESKY et al., Appellants, v. Elder
DEMPSTER, Appellee. Charlie L. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Elder DEMPSTER,
Appellee. Peter BERSHESKY et al., Appellants, v. The ARUNDEL CORPORATION,
a body corporate, Appellee. Peter BERSHESKY et al., Appellees, v. The
ARUNDEL CORPORATION, Appellant.
Nos. 11332-11336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued November 8, 1967.
Decided November 10, 1967.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; R. Dorsey Watkins, Judge.
Joseph F. Lentz, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellants in Nos. 11,332, 11,334, 11,335 and 11,336, and appellees in Nos. 11,333 and 11,337.

Southgate L. Morison, Baltimore, Md. (Ober, Williams Grimes, Baltimore, Md., and Haight, Gardner, Poor Havens, New York City, on brief), for appellee in Nos. 11,334 and 11,335.

Walter S. Levin, Baltimore, Md. (Henry M. Decker, Jr., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants in Nos. 11,333 and 11,337, and appellee in Nos. 11,332 and 11,336.
Before BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, MARVIN JONES, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Claims,fn*and CRAVEN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm on the opinion of the district court. Henderson v. Arundel Corporation,262 F. Supp. 152(D.Md. 1966).

Affirmed.Page 999
  1. Sitting by designation. ↩