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.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. A. ROBINSON, Receiver of the First National Bank of Burley, Idaho, Defendant in Error, 1925 — 7 F.2d 372 · caselaw · US
Corporations
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. A. ROBINSON, Receiver of the First National Bank of Burley, Idaho, Defendant in Error
7 F.2d 372·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1925
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
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. A. ROBINSON, Receiver of the First National Bank of Burley, Idaho, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 3, 1925.
No. 4482.
In Error to the District Court of the-United States for the Southern Division of the District of Idaho; Erank S. Dietrich, Judge.
Erank T. Wyman, of Boise, Idaho, fox’ plaintiff in error.
John W. Graham, of Twin Falls, Idaho, and Oliver O. Haga, McKeen F. Morrow, and J. L. Eberlé, all of Boise, Idaho, for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on the authority of Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. C. A. Robinson, Etc., No. 4473, 7 F.(2d) 371, this day decided.