In re Codman

D. Massachusetts

In re Codman

284 F. 273, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedAugust 29, 1922

DocketNo. 2328

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 F. 273 (In re Codman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Codman, 284 F. 273, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204 (D. Mass. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MACK, Circuit Judge.

I have given careful consideration to the very able argument, supplemented by the essay in the Harvard Law Review,¹ on behalf of the petitioners, and if I had not been satisfied in advance that the reasoning adoptee} by the United States Supreme Court and the courts of the states other than Massachusetts were sound, I should assuredly have been convinced by the argument.

But concededly it is the law of Massachusetts that governs the right of the parties, and I am equally well satisfied that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners have not effected a change in the principles so long established in Massachusetts.

The petition for review must be dismissed, and the order of the referee affirmed.

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

MACK, Circuit Judge.

I have given careful consideration to the very able argument, supplemented by the essay in the Harvard Law Review,¹ on behalf of the petitioners, and if I had not been satisfied in advance that the reasoning adoptee} by the United States Supreme Court and the courts of the states other than Massachusetts were sound, I should assuredly have been convinced by the argument.

But concededly it is the law of Massachusetts that governs the right of the parties, and I am equally well satisfied that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners have not effected a change in the principles so long established in Massachusetts.

The petition for review must be dismissed, and the order of the referee affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 F. 273, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-codman-mad-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack