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.
Ethel CLAWANS, Appellant, v. Sarah CARRICK, Trading as the Whalen Shop, and Mary E. Clarke, Individually and as Agent of Said Sarah Carrick, Appellees, 1932 — 55 F.2d 1038 · caselaw · US
General
Ethel CLAWANS, Appellant, v. Sarah CARRICK, Trading as the Whalen Shop, and Mary E. Clarke, Individually and as Agent of Said Sarah Carrick, Appellees
55 F.2d 1038·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·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
Ethel CLAWANS, Appellant, v. Sarah CARRICK, Trading as the Whalen Shop, and Mary E. Clarke, Individually and as Agent of Said Sarah Carrick, Appellees.
No. 5260.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued Dec. 9, 1931.
Decided Jan. 18, 1932.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 19321.
Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.
W. A. Coombe, Paul B. Cromelin, Bolitha J. Laws, and Francis C. Brooke, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — HITZ, Associate Justice.]
HITZ, Associate Justice.
The parties to this appeal are also parties to No. 5259 just decided, 60 App. D. C. 412, 55 F.(2d) 1037; though, in that case there were additional parties.
In this case there is a similar motion, a similar ruling, a similar appeal, and there ara similar questions of amendments and rules.
For purposes of decision, the eases are identical.
The decision in this ease must he the same as in that and for the same reasons.
The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.