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.
Margaret D. MUSER, as Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, 1930 — 36 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
Margaret D. MUSER, as Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error
36 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1930
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
Margaret D. MUSER, as Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 6, 1930.
No. 123.
Rann, Vaughan, Brown & Sturtevant, of Buffalo, N. Y. (R. C. Vaughan, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Hancock, Dorr, Kingsley & Shove, of Syracuse, N. Y., for defendant in error.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment affirmed.