Crawshaw v. Corbett

Eighth Circuit

Crawshaw v. Corbett

264 F. 962, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1920

DocketNo. 5478

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 F. 962 (Crawshaw v. Corbett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawshaw v. Corbett, 264 F. 962, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350 (8th Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

GARLAND, Circuit Judge.

[1, 2] The only right or authority ap-pellee had to ask for an injunction against appellants in the premises was by virtue of his office as general manager of Kansas City Terminal [963]*963Railroad, having beeti appointed to that office by Hale Holden, regional director tinder W. G. McAdoo, Director General of the United States Railroad Administration. The injunction, when granted by the District Court, ought to have been limited in duration to the period o E United States control. That control having ceased on March 1, 1920, of which we take judicial notice, the case on the merits has become moot. The injunction granted was permanent and unlimited in duration.

We therefore remand the case to the District Court, with instructions to modify the decree entered, so that its duration will cease as herein indicated.

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

GARLAND, Circuit Judge.

[1, 2] The only right or authority ap-pellee had to ask for an injunction against appellants in the premises was by virtue of his office as general manager of Kansas City Terminal [963]*963Railroad, having beeti appointed to that office by Hale Holden, regional director tinder W. G. McAdoo, Director General of the United States Railroad Administration. The injunction, when granted by the District Court, ought to have been limited in duration to the period o E United States control. That control having ceased on March 1, 1920, of which we take judicial notice, the case on the merits has become moot. The injunction granted was permanent and unlimited in duration.

We therefore remand the case to the District Court, with instructions to modify the decree entered, so that its duration will cease as herein indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F. 962, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawshaw-v-corbett-ca8-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack