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.
CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. MEARS, 1934 — 70 F.2d 490 · caselaw · US
General
CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. MEARS
70 F.2d 490·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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
CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. MEARS.
No. 3640.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 30, 1934.
William Leigh Williams, of Norfolk, Va. (D. H. Leake, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
Alfred Anderson, of Norfolk, Va., for ap-pellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case. See (C. C. A.) 64 F.(2d) 291. All of the questions now presented were dealt with in the opinion on the former appeal, which is the law of the case. Dodd v. Union Indemnity Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 32 F.(2d) 512, and cases there cited. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.
Affirmed.