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.
CHICAGO TELEPHONE CO. v. CENTRAL RADIO LABORATORIES, 1934 — 73 F.2d 994 · caselaw · US
General
CHICAGO TELEPHONE CO. v. CENTRAL RADIO LABORATORIES
73 F.2d 994·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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
CHICAGO TELEPHONE CO. v. CENTRAL RADIO LABORATORIES.
No. 5144.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Aug. 7, 1934.
T. Clay Lindsey, of Hartford, Conn., Verne G. Cawley, of Elkhart, Ind., and George L. Wilkinson, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
George I. Haight, of Chicago, 111., and John W. Michael, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Beford ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to stipulation of counsel, filed this date, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without the recovery of costs by either of the parties against the other.