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

Fifth Circuit

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

356 F.2d 472

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1966

Docket22402_1

StatusPublished

This text of 356 F.2d 472 (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

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Florence Lustig Crossman, A/K/A Florence Lustig Trading and Doing Business as Florence Lustig, 356 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

356 F.2d 472

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

No. 22402.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

February 10, 1966.

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

Robert C. Ward, Miami, Fla., for appellee, Ward & Ward, Miami, Fla., of counsel.

Before JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

It is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the district court dismissing the proceedings before it was properly entered. That judgment is

Affirmed.

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

356 F.2d 472

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

No. 22402.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

February 10, 1966.

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

Robert C. Ward, Miami, Fla., for appellee, Ward & Ward, Miami, Fla., of counsel.

Before JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

It is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the district court dismissing the proceedings before it was properly entered. That judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontainebleau-hotel-corp-v-florence-lustig-crossman-aka-florence-ca5-1966.