Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig

346 F.2d 152, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5631
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 1965
Docket21999_1
StatusPublished

This text of 346 F.2d 152 (Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig, Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig, 346 F.2d 152, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5631 (5th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

346 F.2d 152

Florence Lustig CROSSMAN, a/k/a Florence Lustig, trading and
doing business as Florence Lustig, Appellant,
v.
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., Appellee.
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., Appellant,
v.
Florence Lustig CROSSMAN, a/k/a Florence Lustig, trading and
doing business as Florence Lustig, Appellee.

No. 21999.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 10, 1965.

George O. Kluttz, Miami, Fla. (Robert C. Ward, Miami, Fla., Ward & Ward, Miami, Fla., of counsel), for appellant-appellee.

Richard P. Kenney, Williams, Salomon & Kenney, Miami, Fla., for appellee-appellant.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BELL, Circuit Judge, and DYER, District judge.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed to the extent that the appellant is to recover the principal amount of $6,000 and attorney's fees of $1,500. The cross-appellant is correct in its challenge of the inclusion in the judgment of the items for travel expense of witnesses and witness fees. There is no basis in the law for the allowance of these two items.

As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
346 F.2d 152 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
346 F.2d 152, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-lustig-crossman-aka-florence-lustig-trading-and-doing-business-ca5-1965.