Robert R. Gehler v. Paul E. M. Iasigi

Third Circuit

Robert R. Gehler v. Paul E. M. Iasigi

407 F.2d 448, 7 V.I. 3

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided February 6, 1969·No. 17384_1·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has argued pro se his appeal from a judgment in the amount of $1,143.24 and an attorney’s fee of $225.00 for services rendered to him by the plaintiff as a bookkeeper and tax analyst.

The District Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court in a comprehensive opinion which makes it clear that the case involved questions of fact which the Municipal Court resolved in favor of the plaintiff, a conclusion which it could not say was clearly erroneous. 6 V.I. 352.

We agree and therefore will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has argued pro se his appeal from a judgment in the amount of $1,143.24 and an attorney’s fee of $225.00 for services rendered to him by the plaintiff as a bookkeeper and tax analyst.

The District Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court in a comprehensive opinion which makes it clear that the case involved questions of fact which the Municipal Court resolved in favor of the plaintiff, a conclusion which it could not say was clearly erroneous. 6 V.I. 352.

We agree and therefore will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Robert R. Gehler v. Paul E. M. Iasigi, 407 F.2d 448, 7 V.I. 3 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

407 F.2d 448 (Robert R. Gehler v. Paul E. M. Iasigi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related