Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. v. 711.57 ACRES ECT., ALAMEDA, CALIF., 144 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1944)

United States, Appellant, v. 711.57 ACRES OF LAND IN EDENTOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF Cal., W.H. Meek Est., Inc.,et al., Appellees., 144 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1944)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-08-15
Topic
general

U.S. v. 711.57 ACRES ECT., ALAMEDA, CALIF., 144 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1944) UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. 711.57 ACRES OF LAND IN EDENTOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, W.H. Meek Estate, Inc.,et al., Appellees. No. 10851.Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 15, 1944. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, Southern Division.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. 711.57 ACRES ECT., ALAMEDA, CALIF., 144 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1944). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. 711.57 ACRES ECT., ALAMEDA, CALIF.,144 F.2d 355(9th Cir. 1944)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. 711.57 ACRES OF LAND IN EDEN
TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, W.H. Meek Estate, Inc.,
et al., Appellees.
No. 10851.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 15, 1944.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, Southern Division.
M. Mitchell Bourquin, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Hackley Hursh, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees Edwards.

Hilton J. Melby, of Oakland, Cal., for appellee Meek Estate.

Cornish Cornish, of Berkeley, Cal., for appellees Schneider.

John T. Wentz, of Oakland, Cal., for appellees King et al.

Tsar N. Calfee, of Richmond, Cal., for appellee Nielson.

Pierre A. Fontaine, of Oakland, Cal., for appellee Stanley.

Hadsell, Sweet, Ingalls Carroll, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Stenzel.
Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed,51 F. Supp. 30, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly and the mandate of this court issue forthwith.