Bulletin Company v. Victor E. Origoni
This text of 387 F.2d 240 (Bulletin Company v. Victor E. Origoni) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
This cause came on for hearing on the record on appeal from the United States *241 District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
This interlocutory appeal certifies for our consideration the question as to whether Layne v. Tribune Co., 63 App.D.C. 213, 71 F.2d 223, cert. denied, 293 U.S. 572, 55 S.Ct. 83, 79 L.Ed. 670 (1934), and Neely v. Philadelphia Inquirer Co., 61 App.D.C. 334, 62 F.2d 873 (1932), have been overruled sub silentio. We hold that they have not.
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying the motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the complaint be, and it is hereby, reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
387 F.2d 240, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 282, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulletin-company-v-victor-e-origoni-cadc-1967.