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.
AUTO RESEARCH CORP. and Bijur Lubricating Corp., Appellants, v. ALEMITE CORP., Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
AUTO RESEARCH CORP. and Bijur Lubricating Corp., Appellants, v. ALEMITE CORP., Appellee
61 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
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
AUTO RESEARCH CORP. and Bijur Lubricating Corp., Appellants, v. ALEMITE CORP., Appellee.
No. 4981.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Dec. 9, 1932.
Thomas M. Keith, of Wilmington, Del. (Melville Church and C. B. Des Jardins, both of Washington, D. C., and Morris Hirseh, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del. (Lynn A. Williams and Elwood Hansmann, both of Chicago, Ill., and Williams, Bradbury, McCaleb & Hinkle, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the order of the said District Court in this cause, filed August 2, 1932, denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs. Mandate to issue forthwith.