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.
MUTUAL NOVELTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene GOLDBERGER, Defendant-Appellant, 1927 — 18 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
Corporations
MUTUAL NOVELTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene GOLDBERGER, Defendant-Appellant
18 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1927
Before MANTON and MACK, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
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
MUTUAL NOVELTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene GOLDBERGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 24, 1927.
No. 261.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
Morris Kirschstein, of New York City, for appellant.
Maurice Block and M. Schlivek, both of New York City, for appellee.
Before MANTON and MACK, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed in open court.