Piccard v. Sperry Corporation

120 F.2d 328
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 5, 1941
Docket318
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 F.2d 328 (Piccard v. Sperry Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Piccard v. Sperry Corporation, 120 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1941).

Opinion

120 F.2d 328 (1941)

Jules E. PICCARD, on behalf of himself and for the benefit of and on behalf of the defendant, The Sperry Corporation, and all other stockholders of said defendant, The Sperry Corporation, who may be similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SPERRY CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Consolidated Investing Corporation, Appellant.

No. 318.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 1941.

Weinstein & Levinson, of New York City (Frank Weinstein and Samuel J. Levinson, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant Consolidated Investing Corporation.

A. Joseph Geist, of New York City (George E. Netter, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Jules E. Piccard.

Chadbourne, Wallace, Parke & Whiteside, of New York City, for defendants Sperry Corporation and others.

Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City, for defendant J. Russell Forgan and others.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order, 36 F.Supp. 1006, affirmed in open court.

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

Related

Klum v. Clinton Trust Co.
183 Misc. 340 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 F.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piccard-v-sperry-corporation-ca2-1941.