Hart v. Williams

D.C. Circuit

Hart v. Williams

202 F.2d 190, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1952

Docket11311

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 202 F.2d 190 (Hart v. Williams) 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.

Bluebook

Hart v. Williams, 202 F.2d 190, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 340 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a hearing in appellant’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the court below overruled his objections to an order of reference to the aúditor, and exceptions to the auditor’s report. Appellant appeals from this action and the entry of judgment against him.

The objections to the reference are without merit. Moreover, the reference was made pursuant to- the agreement of all counsel and the objections were not made until after the auditor had found the issues in favor of the appellees. And since the record amply supports the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s exceptions to the report, the judgment below must be Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a hearing in appellant’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the court below overruled his objections to an order of reference to the aúditor, and exceptions to the auditor’s report. Appellant appeals from this action and the entry of judgment against him.

The objections to the reference are without merit. Moreover, the reference was made pursuant to- the agreement of all counsel and the objections were not made until after the auditor had found the issues in favor of the appellees. And since the record amply supports the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s exceptions to the report, the judgment below must be Affirmed.

Richard A. Williams and Alfred S. Trask v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, Leonard N. Bebchick and Daniel W. Gottlieb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission

415 F.2d 922 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)

Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission

415 F.2d 922 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)

B & M SERVICE, INC. v. Public Utilities Commission

429 P.2d 293 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1967)

Taylor v. England

213 A.2d 821 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)

State of Maryland for the Use of Nadine Y. Levin v. United States of America, State of Maryland for the Use of Sydney L. Johns v. United States

329 F.2d 722 (Third Circuit, 1964)

First Iowa Hydro Electric Cooperative v. Iowa-Illinois Gas And Electric Company

245 F.2d 613 (First Circuit, 1957)

First Iowa Hydro Electric Cooperative v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.

245 F.2d 613 (Eighth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F.2d 190, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-williams-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack