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.
CRESCENT MOTOR LINES, Incorporated, and W. E. Hines, Appellants, v. William S. HOLLAND, Jr., an Infant, Who Sues by His Father and Next Friend, William S. Holland, Sr., Appellee, 1934 — 73 F.2d 996 · caselaw · US
General
CRESCENT MOTOR LINES, Incorporated, and W. E. Hines, Appellants, v. William S. HOLLAND, Jr., an Infant, Who Sues by His Father and Next Friend, William S. Holland, Sr., Appellee
73 F.2d 996·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
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
CRESCENT MOTOR LINES, Incorporated, and W. E. Hines, Appellants, v. William S. HOLLAND, Jr., an Infant, Who Sues by His Father and Next Friend, William S. Holland, Sr., Appellee.
No. 3661.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
May 23, 1934.
S. Burnell Bragg, of Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
Hugh L. Holland and M. Anderson Maxey, both of Suffolk, Va., and James G. Martin, of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Case dismissed under Rule 29 in accordance with agreement of counsel.