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.
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. George R. FREEMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of Frank Freeman, Deceased, Appellee, 1934 — 71 F.2d 1011 · caselaw · US
Corporations
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. George R. FREEMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of Frank Freeman, Deceased, Appellee
71 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. George R. FREEMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of Frank Freeman, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 7515.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 11, 1934.
John Ralph Wilson and Milton New-mark, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
George R. Freeman, in pro. per.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges,
Rehearing denied Aug. 29, 1934.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
After oral arguments, upon motion to dismiss appeal, ordered appeal in above cause dismissed upon the authority of Chatfield et al. v. O’Dwyer et al, 101 F. 797; Foreman v. Burleigh, 109 F. 313; In re Lewensohn, 121 F. 538; Ohio Valley Bank v. Mack, 163 F. 155; In re Chakos, 24 F.(2d) 482; Amick v. Mortgage Sec. Corp., 30 F.(2d) 359; Johnson v. Barney, 53 F.(2d) 770; In re Patterson-McDonald Ship Building Company, 288 F. 546, and that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered.