Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim

189 F.2d 702, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 406, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3221
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided June 7, 1951·No. 285_1·Published

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

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).

189 F.2d 702 (Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wells v. United States
318 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Newman v. United States
184 F.2d 275 (D.C. Circuit, 1951)