Pitt v. Rodgers

Ninth Circuit

Pitt v. Rodgers

234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 1916

DocketNo. 2832

StatusPublished

This text of 234 F. 1023 (Pitt v. Rodgers) 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

Pitt v. Rodgers, 234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156 (9th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. Morrison, Dunno & Brobeck and Edward Hohfeld, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Upon application of counsel for appellee, and on consideration ol' certificate of clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, ordered, appeal dismissed for noncompliance by the appellants with provisions of subdivision 1 of rule 16 of the Rules of Practice (150 Fed. cxxvii).

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

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. Morrison, Dunno & Brobeck and Edward Hohfeld, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Upon application of counsel for appellee, and on consideration ol' certificate of clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, ordered, appeal dismissed for noncompliance by the appellants with provisions of subdivision 1 of rule 16 of the Rules of Practice (150 Fed. cxxvii).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitt-v-rodgers-ca9-1916.