Piper v. Cashell

Ninth Circuit

Piper v. Cashell

118 F. 1019, 1 Alaska Fed. 905

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Piper v. Cashell. Read the opinion of the Court — 122 F. 614 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 1, 1902·No. No. 853·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the above-entitled cause, counsel for the defendants in error having called the attention of the court to the fact that counsel who signed the brief for the plaintiff in error therein are not members of the bar of the circuit court of appeals, thereupon the court held that briefs which were not signed by counsel whose qualifications were consistent with the requirements of rule 7 of the court (31 C.C.A. cxliv, 90 F. cxliv) would not be considered by the court.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the above-entitled cause, counsel for the defendants in error having called the attention of the court to the fact that counsel who signed the brief for the plaintiff in error therein are not members of the bar of the circuit court of appeals, thereupon the court held that briefs which were not signed by counsel whose qualifications were consistent with the requirements of rule 7 of the court (31 C.C.A. cxliv, 90 F. cxliv) would not be considered by the court.

Piper v. Cashell, 118 F. 1019, 1 Alaska Fed. 905 (9th Cir. 1902).

Pincite

118 F. 1019 (Piper v. Cashell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.