Max Tendler v. Nick Basiliko

D.C. Circuit

Max Tendler v. Nick Basiliko

231 F.2d 516, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1956

Docket12899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 F.2d 516 (Max Tendler v. Nick Basiliko) 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

Max Tendler v. Nick Basiliko, 231 F.2d 516, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, in essence, represents an effort by appellant to obtain relief from the terms of agreements and stipulations which he made as a result of his in *517 volvement in an unfortunate real estate transaction. The questions presented were carefully considered at hearings held before three Judges of the District Court on successive motions of the parties. All concluded that appellant was not entitled to relief. We agree. The judgment appealed from will be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, in essence, represents an effort by appellant to obtain relief from the terms of agreements and stipulations which he made as a result of his in *517 volvement in an unfortunate real estate transaction. The questions presented were carefully considered at hearings held before three Judges of the District Court on successive motions of the parties. All concluded that appellant was not entitled to relief. We agree. The judgment appealed from will be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F.2d 516, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-tendler-v-nick-basiliko-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack