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.
F. M. COULTER v. SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 1932 — 57 F.2d 1074 · caselaw · US
General
F. M. COULTER v. SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
57 F.2d 1074·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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
F. M. COULTER v. SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 6633.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 25, 1932.
Thomas F. MeCue, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
J. Hampton Hoge, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion of counsel for appellee, ordered appeal dismissed for failure of appellant to print record and file brief before ease is reached for argument; mandate forthwith.