Brenna v. Federal Cartridge Corporation

Eighth Circuit

Brenna v. Federal Cartridge Corporation

183 F.2d 414, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2954, 18 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 65,891

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided July 18, 1950·No. 13678_1·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have petitioned this court for a rehearing because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Powell et al. v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S.Ct. 755, reversing the decision of this Court in United States Cartridge Co. v. Powell et al., 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 718, upon the authority of which the judgment of dismissal in the instant case was affirmed by this Court, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 732.

The reversal of the decision of this Court in the Powell case requires that the petition for rehearing be granted, and that the judgment appealed from be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have petitioned this court for a rehearing because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Powell et al. v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S.Ct. 755, reversing the decision of this Court in United States Cartridge Co. v. Powell et al., 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 718, upon the authority of which the judgment of dismissal in the instant case was affirmed by this Court, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 732.

The reversal of the decision of this Court in the Powell case requires that the petition for rehearing be granted, and that the judgment appealed from be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

Brenna v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 183 F.2d 414, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2954, 18 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 65,891 (8th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

183 F.2d 414 (Brenna v. Federal Cartridge Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Kansas Public Employees Retirement, System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., A, Kansas Corporation Ronald Reimer, an Individual Kenneth H. Koger, Anindividual Clifford W. Shinski, an Individual Brent Messick, an Individual Robert Crew, an Individual Sherman Dreiseszun, an Individual I. I. Ozar, an Individual Frank Sebree, an Individual - Michael K. Russell, an Individual, Gage & Tucker, a Law Partnership Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., an Accountancy Firm Kpmg Peat Marwick, an Accountancy Firm Robert Spence, an Individual Thomas S. Morgan, Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank S. Morgan Marilyn J., Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank Morgan, - C. Patrick McLarney Substituted for Shook Hardy Law Firm, Intervenor - Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, Martin, L.L.P. William H. Sanders, Sr., Individually and as the Representative of a Class

194 F.3d 922 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Raymond L. McGeshick v. A.K. Choucair, M.D., Marshfield Clinic, and Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund

72 F.3d 62 (Seventh Circuit, 1995)

Evelyn Marino v. Juan U. Ortiz

888 F.2d 12 (Second Circuit, 1989)

Opinion

Related