Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Gochenour v. George and Frances Ball Foundation

117 F.2d 259

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1941-01-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. From an order dismissing the amended bill of complaint plaintiffs prosecute this appeal. At the time of dismissal Judge Baltzell filed an' exhaustive and able opinion, containing a full statement of facts and elaborate reasons for his action, which opinion has since been published in D.C., 35 F.Supp. 508. A study of the record convinces us that the action of the ’District Court was sound and we hereby adopt by reference the opinion of the District Judge as the opinion of this court. The motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gochenour v. George and Frances Ball Foundation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
GOCHENOUR v. GEORGE AND FRANCES BALL FOUND.,117 F.2d 259(7th Cir. 1941)
A.B. GOCHENOUR, Anna L. Long, James B. Dick, August Feine Sons Company,
Isaac Barnett, Muljo Holding Co., Evelyn R. Look, Charles E. Kingsley,
Louis Napoleon Butler, J.D. Dwees and F.H. Josslyn, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. GEORGE AND FRANCES BALL FOUNDATION, George A. Ball and F.B. Bernard,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 7338.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
January 21, 1941.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division; Robert C. Baltzell, Judge.
Meyer Abrams, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Patrick J. Smith, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Everett Warner, of Muncie, Ind., for appellees.Page 260
Before EVANS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
From an order dismissing the amended bill of complaint plaintiffs prosecute this appeal. At the time of dismissal Judge Baltzell filed an exhaustive and able opinion, containing a full statement of facts and elaborate reasons for his action, which opinion has since been published in D.C.,35 F. Supp. 508. A study of the record convinces us that the action of the District Court was sound and we hereby adopt by reference the opinion of the District Judge as the opinion of this court.

The motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 261Page 368