Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury

Ninth Circuit

Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury

98 F.2d 115, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3166

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1938

DocketNo. 8600

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 98 F.2d 115 (Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury, 98 F.2d 115, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3166 (9th Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order refusing an application for an interlocutory injunction. The order was entered on June 10, 1937. This appeal was taken on June 25, 1937. Thereafter the case proceeded to final hearing, and on November 22, 1937, the District Court entered a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint. An appeal from the final decree was taken on February 1, 1938, and is now pending in this court. Hence, the first. mentioned appeal should be dismissed. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 386, 53 S.Ct. 190, 191, 77 L.Ed. 375; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 224, 52 S.Ct. 559, 561, 76 L.Ed. 1062, 86 A.L.R. 403; Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U.S. 196, 205, 44 S.Ct. 553, 556, 68 L.Ed. 975; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 44, 40 S.Ct. 221, 222, 64 L.Ed. 445.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order refusing an application for an interlocutory injunction. The order was entered on June 10, 1937. This appeal was taken on June 25, 1937. Thereafter the case proceeded to final hearing, and on November 22, 1937, the District Court entered a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint. An appeal from the final decree was taken on February 1, 1938, and is now pending in this court. Hence, the first. mentioned appeal should be dismissed. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 386, 53 S.Ct. 190, 191, 77 L.Ed. 375; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 224, 52 S.Ct. 559, 561, 76 L.Ed. 1062, 86 A.L.R. 403; Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U.S. 196, 205, 44 S.Ct. 553, 556, 68 L.Ed. 975; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 44, 40 S.Ct. 221, 222, 64 L.Ed. 445.

Appeal dismissed.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6256, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,256 in Re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation. Maximo Hilao, Class v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Republic of the Philippines, a Non-Party Specifically Identified as Subject to the Preliminary Injunction, in Re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation. Maximo Hilao, Class v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Republic of the Philippines, a Non-Party Specifically Identified as Subject to the Preliminary Injunction

94 F.3d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Hilao v. Estate of Marcos

94 F.3d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mount Vernon Memorial Park

664 F.2d 1358 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1295, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,732 United States of America v. City of Chicago

534 F.2d 708 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)

Russell E. Peterson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

268 F.2d 567 (Seventh Circuit, 1959)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Okin

137 F.2d 862 (Second Circuit, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F.2d 115, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-dry-dock-co-v-pillsbury-ca9-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack