In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank

Sixth Circuit

In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank

202 F.2d 426, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1953

Docket11662

StatusPublished

This text of 202 F.2d 426 (In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank, 202 F.2d 426, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 105 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188; In re Avery, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 768, 770; In re Zaepfel & Russell, Inc., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 709, 710, affirmed Farmer’s State Bank v. Jones, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 215; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 120 P. 153, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 918; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N.W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 79 A.L.R. 983;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is, not erroneous;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188; In re Avery, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 768, 770; In re Zaepfel & Russell, Inc., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 709, 710, affirmed Farmer’s State Bank v. Jones, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 215; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 120 P. 153, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 918; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N.W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 79 A.L.R. 983;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is, not erroneous;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F.2d 426, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-spilka-v-michigan-nat-bank-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack