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.
PURITY STORES, Ltd., a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. M. LOPES and Mary Lopes, Appellees, 1934 — 72 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
Corporations
PURITY STORES, Ltd., a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. M. LOPES and Mary Lopes, Appellees
72 F.2d 1018·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
PURITY STORES, Ltd., a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. M. LOPES and Mary Lopes, Appellees.
No. 7418.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1934.
Fred A. Watkins, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
J. A. Chase, of Visalia, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In this case, the court having heard the conflicting evidence and determined the facts in issue against the appellant, the judgment must be affirmed.