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.
MARCELL et al. v. ENGEBRETSON (two cases), 1935 — 76 F.2d 876 · caselaw · US
General
MARCELL et al. v. ENGEBRETSON (two cases)
76 F.2d 876·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1935
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
MARCELL et al. v. ENGEBRETSON (two cases).
Nos. 9976, 10030.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 15, 1935.
For former opinion, see 74 F.(2d) 93.
Clinton Brome and W. H. Herdman, both of Omaha, Neb. (U. S. G. Cherry and Gale B. Braithwaite, both of Sioux Falls, S. D., on the brief), for appellants..
M. E. Culhane, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Olaf Eidem, of Brookings, S. D. (Frank L. Weaver and William M. Giller, both of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for appellee.
• Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon petition of the appellee herein, this court granted a rehearing in case No. 10030. The case has been reargued, and we have considered the supplemental briefs and the arguments of counsel.
We have reached the conclusion that the court below was without jurisdiction, in a summary proceeding, to adjudicate title to the property in the possession of the appellants ; that the opinion heretofore filed herein should stand as the opinion of this court in this case; and that the decree appealed from should be reversed, with directions to dismiss the summary proceeding.
It is so ordered. ' ’