Lavinthal v. I. T. S. Co.

Third Circuit

Lavinthal v. I. T. S. Co.

55 F.2d 232, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1932

DocketNo. 4683

StatusPublished

This text of 55 F.2d 232 (Lavinthal v. I. T. S. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lavinthal v. I. T. S. Co., 55 F.2d 232, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754 (3d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this patent ease the final decree, the entry of which the petitioner says was error, was entered on March 27, 1931. From the entry thereof he took no appeal within the time provided by statute. On July 21, 1931, he presented this petition for a writ of certiorari and therein seeks to review the same alleged error that could have been reviewed on a timely appeal. In other words, he seeks, in effect, to use a writ of certiorari as an appeal.

In the ease of Turner v. United States (C. C. A.) 14 F.(2d) 360, 361, the court makes it plain this cannot be done, holding: “But it may not be used under this provision as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to correct mere errors committed in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction. * * * In Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Elec. Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 802, we made use of the writ to restrain and correct a plain excess of jurisdiction.”

The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this patent ease the final decree, the entry of which the petitioner says was error, was entered on March 27, 1931. From the entry thereof he took no appeal within the time provided by statute. On July 21, 1931, he presented this petition for a writ of certiorari and therein seeks to review the same alleged error that could have been reviewed on a timely appeal. In other words, he seeks, in effect, to use a writ of certiorari as an appeal.

In the ease of Turner v. United States (C. C. A.) 14 F.(2d) 360, 361, the court makes it plain this cannot be done, holding: “But it may not be used under this provision as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to correct mere errors committed in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction. * * * In Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Elec. Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 802, we made use of the writ to restrain and correct a plain excess of jurisdiction.”

The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F.2d 232, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavinthal-v-i-t-s-co-ca3-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack