Nehrenberg v. Introligator

Third Circuit

Nehrenberg v. Introligator

4 F.2d 1020, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3200

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1925

DocketNo. 3289

StatusPublished

This text of 4 F.2d 1020 (Nehrenberg v. Introligator) 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

Nehrenberg v. Introligator, 4 F.2d 1020, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3200 (3d Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At a hearing on a rule to show cause why his discharge in bankruptcy should not be revoked, the bankrupt declined to answer questions. His refusal to testify stopped the proceeding abruptly, and his persistence in that regard made its completion impossible. Accordingly, the court entered an order holding him guilty of contempt. From that order he took this appeal, justifying his silence on several errors which he alleges the court had committed in the proceeding leading up to the hearing. No question of jurisdiction [1021]*1021being involved, the only matter which this appeal brings here for review is the order adjudging the bankrupt guilty of contempt. Questions of antecedent errors are not before us. As we discern no error in the order, it is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

At a hearing on a rule to show cause why his discharge in bankruptcy should not be revoked, the bankrupt declined to answer questions. His refusal to testify stopped the proceeding abruptly, and his persistence in that regard made its completion impossible. Accordingly, the court entered an order holding him guilty of contempt. From that order he took this appeal, justifying his silence on several errors which he alleges the court had committed in the proceeding leading up to the hearing. No question of jurisdiction [1021]*1021being involved, the only matter which this appeal brings here for review is the order adjudging the bankrupt guilty of contempt. Questions of antecedent errors are not before us. As we discern no error in the order, it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F.2d 1020, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nehrenberg-v-introligator-ca3-1925.