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.
PACIFIC OILCLOTH & LINOLEUM CO., Appellant, v. Wm. C. McDUFFIE, as Receiver of Richfield Oil Company, Appellee, 1934 — 68 F.2d 1012 · caselaw · US
General
PACIFIC OILCLOTH & LINOLEUM CO., Appellant, v. Wm. C. McDUFFIE, as Receiver of Richfield Oil Company, Appellee
68 F.2d 1012·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
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
PACIFIC OILCLOTH & LINOLEUM CO., Appellant, v. Wm. C. McDUFFIE, as Receiver of Richfield Oil Company, Appellee.
No. 7346.
. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 1934.
John B. Haas and John D. Home, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and David P. Evans, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appel-lee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
After oral argument of counsel for re-speetive parties, ordered orders of District Court affirmed; mandate forthwith.