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.
Corporations
Edward S. RICH, Appellant, v. NU-ENAMEL PAINT COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, et al., Appellees
35 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1929
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
Edward S. RICH, Appellant, v. NU-ENAMEL PAINT COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, et al., Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 23, 1929.
No. 5621.
J. D. Skeen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and George Sergeant, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
John Davis, of Dallas, Tex. (P. D. Crawford and John Davis, both of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
No ruling complained of being properly presented for review, the judgment is affirmed.