Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MIDLAND BANK et al. v. MORTON, IRVINE, BLANCHARD & TOU VELLE and Clarence A. Hoopes, 1933 — 63 F.2d 1011 · caselaw · US
General
MIDLAND BANK et al. v. MORTON, IRVINE, BLANCHARD & TOU VELLE and Clarence A. Hoopes
63 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MIDLAND BANK et al. v. MORTON, IRVINE, BLANCHARD & TOU VELLE and Clarence A. Hoopes.
No. 6131.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1933.
Spring, Sayre & Vail, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Herbert S. & Thomas J. Duffy, of Columbus, Ohio, for appellants.
Morton, Irvine, Blanchard & TouVelle, of Columbus, Ohio, and C. A. Hoopes, of Marysville, Ohio, for appellees.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed upon authority of Decley v. Art Pub. Co., 23 F.(2d) 920.