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.
Frank J. SOLINSKY, Sr., and Frank J. Solinsky, Jr., Appellants, v. Charles McPHERSON and Ewald J. Pfeiffer, as Special Administrators of the Estate of Charles F. Ruggles, Deceased; John H. Rademaker, Charles McPherson and Amador Timber Company (a Corporation), Appellees, 1930 — 45 F.2d 780 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Frank J. SOLINSKY, Sr., and Frank J. Solinsky, Jr., Appellants, v. Charles McPHERSON and Ewald J. Pfeiffer, as Special Administrators of the Estate of Charles F. Ruggles, Deceased; John H. Rademaker, Charles McPherson and Amador Timber Company (a Corporation), Appellees
45 F.2d 780·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1930
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.
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
Frank J. SOLINSKY, Sr., and Frank J. Solinsky, Jr., Appellants, v. Charles McPHERSON and Ewald J. Pfeiffer, as Special Administrators of the Estate of Charles F. Ruggles, Deceased; John H. Rademaker, Charles McPherson and Amador Timber Company (a Corporation), Appellees.
No. 6114.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 1930.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1931.
James F. Peek and Edw. R. Solinsky, both of San Francisco, Cal., and Nutter, Hancock & Rutherford and A. P. Hayne, all of Stockton, Cal., for appellants.
Clyde 'H. Brand and Downey, Brand & Seymour, all of Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The decree is affirmed on the authority of Solinsky v. McPherson et al. (C. C. A., No. 6113), 45 F.(2d) 778, just decided.