Samuel G. Whitney v. W. R. Grasle Co., an Oregon Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Samuel G. Whitney v. W. R. Grasle Co., an Oregon Corporation

442 F.2d 1346

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 1971

Docket25786_1

StatusPublished

This text of 442 F.2d 1346 (Samuel G. Whitney v. W. R. Grasle Co., an Oregon Corporation) 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

Samuel G. Whitney v. W. R. Grasle Co., an Oregon Corporation, 442 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*1347 PER CURIAM:

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. 1

On the merits, we have carefullly reviewed the record. The District Court found as a fact that the appellee “did not discharge or refuse to hire [appellant] because of his race, color or national origin.” In the light of all the testimony heard by the District Court, we cannot say that its quoted finding was clearly erroneous. Thus, the judgment must be, and it hereby is,

Affirmed.

1

. The appellee’s motion to dismiss was based upon its contention that it was not served with a copy of the appellant’s opening brief in this court. The opening brief was apparently received in our Clerk’s office on December 29, 1970. The motion to dismiss the appeal was not filed until April 6, 1971, after the appeal had already been scheduled for oral argument on May 3, 1971. It is because of this delay on the part of appellee’s counsel and because the appellant represents himself in propria persona that we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

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

*1347 PER CURIAM:

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. 1

On the merits, we have carefullly reviewed the record. The District Court found as a fact that the appellee “did not discharge or refuse to hire [appellant] because of his race, color or national origin.” In the light of all the testimony heard by the District Court, we cannot say that its quoted finding was clearly erroneous. Thus, the judgment must be, and it hereby is,

Affirmed.

1

. The appellee’s motion to dismiss was based upon its contention that it was not served with a copy of the appellant’s opening brief in this court. The opening brief was apparently received in our Clerk’s office on December 29, 1970. The motion to dismiss the appeal was not filed until April 6, 1971, after the appeal had already been scheduled for oral argument on May 3, 1971. It is because of this delay on the part of appellee’s counsel and because the appellant represents himself in propria persona that we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 1346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-g-whitney-v-w-r-grasle-co-an-oregon-corporation-ca9-1971.