Arthur Anderson and George Gilbertson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Arthur Anderson and George Gilbertson v. United States

218 F.2d 780, 15 Alaska 377

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1955

Docket14016

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 F.2d 780 (Arthur Anderson and George Gilbertson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Anderson and George Gilbertson v. United States, 218 F.2d 780, 15 Alaska 377 (9th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ brief contains no statement disclosing the basis of jurisdiction as required by Rule 18(b) of this court and no specifications of error setting out “particularly each error intended to be urged” as required by subsection (d) of the same rule. More than five years ago the applicability in Alaska of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was specifically determined by this court in Cutting v. Bullerdick, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 774, 777, with a caveat ágainst “any relaxation in the requirements of the rules in cases to which they are applicable.” The same is true of the rules of this court and the present appeal is subject to dismissal for the noncompliance referred to. Inasmuch as all questions on the merits apparently urged in appellants’ argument have been decided adversely to appellants’ contentions in Jones v. U. S., 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 707, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ brief contains no statement disclosing the basis of jurisdiction as required by Rule 18(b) of this court and no specifications of error setting out “particularly each error intended to be urged” as required by subsection (d) of the same rule. More than five years ago the applicability in Alaska of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was specifically determined by this court in Cutting v. Bullerdick, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 774, 777, with a caveat ágainst “any relaxation in the requirements of the rules in cases to which they are applicable.” The same is true of the rules of this court and the present appeal is subject to dismissal for the noncompliance referred to. Inasmuch as all questions on the merits apparently urged in appellants’ argument have been decided adversely to appellants’ contentions in Jones v. U. S., 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 707, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 780, 15 Alaska 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-anderson-and-george-gilbertson-v-united-states-ca9-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack