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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Celia LEVENSON, Appellee
61 F.2d 528·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Celia LEVENSON, Appellee.
No. 5501.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued May 6, 1932.
Decided June 13, 1932.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1932.
William W. Bride and Robert E. Lynch, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
T. Morris Wampler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, C. J., and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — GRONER, Associate Justice.]
GRONER, Associate Justice.
It was stipulated that this ease would be controlled by No. 5500, District of Columbia v. Mary Chessin, 61 App. D. C. 266, 61 F.(2d) 523, decided this day, and since we have affirmed in No. 5566, this ease should be, and therefore is likewise, affirmed.
Affirmed.