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.
HARDING GLASS CO. et al., Appellants, v. TWIN CITY PIPE LINE CO. et al., 1934 — 71 F.2d 1007 · caselaw · US
General
HARDING GLASS CO. et al., Appellants, v. TWIN CITY PIPE LINE CO. et al.
71 F.2d 1007·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
HARDING GLASS CO. et al., Appellants, v. TWIN CITY PIPE LINE CO. et al.
No. 9364.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
April 30, 1934.
Joseph R. Brown and James B. Mc-Donough, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for appellants.
Harry P. Daily and John P. Woods, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed with costs, per stipulation of parties.