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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert H. LEYS, 1932 — 63 F.2d 648 · caselaw · US
Corporations
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert H. LEYS
63 F.2d 648·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1932
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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert H. LEYS.
No. 5537.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued June 2, 1932.
Decided June 27, 1932.
William W. Bride, Vernon E. West, and Thomas P. Cameron, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Alvin L. Newmyer, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and HITZ and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — HITZ, Associate Justice.]
HITZ, Associate Justice.
This ease was consolidated for trial with 61 App. D. C. 3, 63 F.(2d) 646, both here and below.
The questions involved are there discussed and decided, and for the reasons there assigned the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.