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.
Leon J. MILLARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. MAXWELL MOTOR SALES CORPORATION, Defendant in Error, 1928 — 26 F.2d 212 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Leon J. MILLARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. MAXWELL MOTOR SALES CORPORATION, Defendant in Error
26 F.2d 212·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1928
Before WALTER H. SANBORN and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.
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
Leon J. MILLARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. MAXWELL MOTOR SALES CORPORATION, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 1, 1928.
No. 7836.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska; Joseph W. Woodrough, Judge.
Glenn N. Venrick, of Omaha, Neb. (Francis H. Mayo, of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Harold R. Smith, of Detroit, Mich. (David A. Fitch, of Omaha, Neb., and Harry C. Bulkley, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALTER H. SANBORN and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — MUNGER, District Judge.]
MUNGER, District Judge.
This case presents no essential difference in facts from those presented in the case of John W. Towle v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation, 26 F.(2d) 209, decided this day. The cases were tried together, and a verdict in favor of the defendant was directed in each at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
The judgment will be affirmed.