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.
Ira M. PETERSIME and Ray Petersime, Trading as Ira M. Petersime & Son, v. BUCKEYE INCUBATOR COMPANY and Samuel B. Smith, 1927 — 22 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
General
Ira M. PETERSIME and Ray Petersime, Trading as Ira M. Petersime & Son, v. BUCKEYE INCUBATOR COMPANY and Samuel B. Smith
22 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1927
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
Ira M. PETERSIME and Ray Petersime, Trading as Ira M. Petersime & Son, v. BUCKEYE INCUBATOR COMPANY and Samuel B. Smith.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 10, 1927.
No. 4778.
’Cross-Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; Smith Hickenlooper, Judge.
See, also, 19 F.(2d) 721.
Toulmin & Toulmin, of Dayton, Ohio, for cross-appellants.
Staley & Bowman, of Springfield, Ohio, for cross-appellees.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree of District Court affirmed, with costs.