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.
CURTIS LIGHTING CO. v. HILAM Inc., 1934 — 71 F.2d 1003 · caselaw · US
General
CURTIS LIGHTING CO. v. HILAM Inc.
71 F.2d 1003·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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
CURTIS LIGHTING CO. v. HILAM Inc.
No. 4810.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 4, 1934.
Ervin J. Youngerman, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Irving E. Hollobow, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Casanave Young, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZHENRY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On motion of counsel for appellants, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs.