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.
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Harry C. SMITH, Appellee; SAME v. Harry W. WESTON, Appellee; SAME v. Gustav NORDQUIST and John Nilson, Appellees, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1003 · caselaw · US
General
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Harry C. SMITH, Appellee; SAME v. Harry W. WESTON, Appellee; SAME v. Gustav NORDQUIST and John Nilson, Appellees
66 F.2d 1003·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1933
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
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Harry C. SMITH, Appellee. SAME v. Harry W. WESTON, Appellee. SAME v. Gustav NORDQUIST and John Nilson, Appellees.
No. 6784.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 27, 1933.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 6, 1933.
Before WILBUR, Circuit Judge, and JAMES and NORCROSS, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — NORCROSS, District Judge.]
NORCROSS, District Judge.
This is an appeal from decrees entered by the court below in three suits consolidated for trial and appeal. This appeal presents questions precisely of tho same character considered in 66 F.(2d) 999, this day decided. The reasons stated in the opinion filed in that caso are controlling in this case.
The decree is reversed, and ease remanded to the District Court, with directions to dis miss the same for want of necessary party or parties, unless the plaintiffs within a reasonable time amend their complaint to bring in sucli necessary party or parties, and to take further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the opinion of this court.