Pitt v. Rodgers

Ninth Circuit

Pitt v. Rodgers

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

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 24, 1916·No. No. 2832·Published

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).

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

Pincite

234 F. 1023 (Pitt v. Rodgers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.