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.
General
J. J. NATHANSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
63 F.2d 939·United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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
J. J. NATHANSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
No. 4897.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 1, 1933.
Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.
Harlan Besson, U. S. Atty., of Hoboken, N. J., and John W. Griggs, U. S. Atty., of Paterson, N. J.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.]
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.
Tlxe facts and questions of law involved in this appeal are in all essentials similar to those in the ease of J. J. Nathanson v. United States of America (C. C. A.) 63 F.(2d) 937, in which an opinion was filed this day.
On authority of the reasoning in that ease, the judgment is affirmed.