Eureka Cereal Beverage Co. v. Pennington
66 F.2d 1005, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2842
Opinion
Apart from the failure of the plaintiff in this hill to make the commissioner a party [see opinion of this court in Chamberlain v. Lembeck, 18 F.(2d) 408], the year covered by the permit here involved had expired before this case was argued before this court, and the questions involved were then academic.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eureka Cereal Beverage Co. v. Pennington, 66 F.2d 1005, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2842 (3d Cir. 1933).
66 F.2d 1005 (Eureka Cereal Beverage Co. v. Pennington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chamberlain v. Lembeck
18 F.2d 408 (Third Circuit, 1927)