United States v. Frank Wallace and R. M. Makemson, Doing Business as Wallace and Wallace, a Partnership

185 F.2d 676
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 20, 1950·No. 12529·Published

Opinion

185 F.2d 676

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Frank WALLACE and R. M. Makemson, doing business as Wallace
and Wallace, a partnership, Appellees.

No. 12529.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1950.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Dave W. Ling, Judge.

H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank E. Flynn, U.S. Atty., E. R. Thurman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., George A. Fruit, Attorney, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., (Joseph M. Friedman, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., J. Gregory Bruce and John G. Roberts, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant.

Evans, Hull, Kitchel & Jenckes and Norman S. Hull, all of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS and HEALY, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court affirmed. See United States v. Pacific Fruit and Produce Co., 9 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 367, cf. Bolten v. General Motors Corp., 7 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 379.

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

United States v. Frank Wallace and R. M. Makemson, Doing Business as Wallace and Wallace, a Partnership, 185 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1950).

185 F.2d 676 (United States v. Frank Wallace and R. M. Makemson, Doing Business as Wallace and Wallace, a Partnership) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bolten v. General Motors Corporation
180 F.2d 379 (Seventh Circuit, 1950)
United States v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.
138 F.2d 367 (Ninth Circuit, 1943)