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.
Jose BORRELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PERERA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 1975 — 512 F.2d 1380 · caselaw · US
General
Jose BORRELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PERERA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant
512 F.2d 1380·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1975
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, MULLIGAN, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, 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
Jose BORRELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PERERA COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 746, Docket 74-2466.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 24, 1975.
Decided March 25, 1975.
Harry Litwin, New York City (Greenwald, Kovner & Goldsmith, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Lawrence W. Pollack, New York City (Migdal, Tenney, Glass & Pollack, Frank & Fredericks, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, MULLIGAN, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
Of the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
We affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Levet’s opinion, Borrello v. Perera Company, Inc., 381 F.Supp. 1226 (S.D.N. Y.1974).