Lipson v. General Electric Co.

Third Circuit

Lipson v. General Electric Co.

31 F.2d 106, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1929

DocketNos. 3921, 3922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 F.2d 106 (Lipson v. General Electric 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

Lipson v. General Electric Co., 31 F.2d 106, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406 (3d Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from orders in two proceedings in the District Court adjudging the defendants respectively in contempt for violating injunctions theretofore issued and more particularly referred to in Lipson et al. v. General Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 105, this day decided. The [107]*107sole question involved in each appeal, as stated by the appellants, is whether or not a person under a perpetual injunction can be held to be in contempt of court without proof of the doing of forbidden acts. From this statement it is clear that the question involved in each case is purely one of fact. As no matter of law is raised, it will not be necessary to tell the stories or discuss the evidence, the trend of which can be gathered from the opinion in Lipson et al. v. General Electric Co., supra. It will be enough to say that this court has carefully studied this phase of long familiar litigation, and has found that the evidence sustains the orders, which accordingly are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from orders in two proceedings in the District Court adjudging the defendants respectively in contempt for violating injunctions theretofore issued and more particularly referred to in Lipson et al. v. General Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 105, this day decided. The [107]*107sole question involved in each appeal, as stated by the appellants, is whether or not a person under a perpetual injunction can be held to be in contempt of court without proof of the doing of forbidden acts. From this statement it is clear that the question involved in each case is purely one of fact. As no matter of law is raised, it will not be necessary to tell the stories or discuss the evidence, the trend of which can be gathered from the opinion in Lipson et al. v. General Electric Co., supra. It will be enough to say that this court has carefully studied this phase of long familiar litigation, and has found that the evidence sustains the orders, which accordingly are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F.2d 106, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipson-v-general-electric-co-ca3-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack