Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim

D.C. Circuit

Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim

189 F.2d 702, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 406, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3221

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 1951

Docket285_1

StatusPublished

This text of 189 F.2d 702 (Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim) 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

Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim, 189 F.2d 702, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 406, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3221 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

189 F.2d 702

89 U.S.App.D.C. 406

Marie E. BARWICK, Petitioner
v.
Hinda S. MANHEIM, Respondent.

Misc. No. 285.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 24, 1951.
Decided June 7, 1951.

Jo V. Morgan, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

James M. Desmond, Washington, D.C., with whom Roy B. Kelly, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent.

Before EDGERTON and BAZELON, Circuit Judges, and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied. Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. 746; Newman v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275.

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