Bettie Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Company
This text of 376 F.2d 265 (Bettie Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
376 F.2d 265
Bettie MURPHY and Lloyd Murphy, Her Husband, and Lloyd
Murphy, in His Own Right, Appellants,
v.
HELENA RUBENSTEIN COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of New
York, and H. J. Titus, Inc., a Corporation of the
State of New York, Jointly, Severally
and/or in the Alternative.
No. 16202.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued March 30, 1967.
Decided April 17, 1967.
Mario A. iavicoli, Camden, N.J. (Arthur E. Ballen, Camden, N.J., on the brief), for appellants.
Sidney P. McCord, Jr., Haddonfield, N.J. (McCord, Farrell, Eynon & Munyon, Haddonfield, N.J., on the brief), for appellees.
Before KALODNER and SEITZ, Circuit Judges, and BODY, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
On review of the record we find no error. The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
376 F.2d 265, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bettie-murphy-v-helena-rubenstein-company-ca3-1967.