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.
Herman W. MELLING v. GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY, 1927 — 22 F.2d 1015 · caselaw · US
General
Herman W. MELLING v. GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY
22 F.2d 1015·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
Herman W. MELLING v. GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 8, 1927.
No. 4938.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. Westenhaver, Judge.
For opinion below, see 14 F.(2d) 437.
Chappell & Earl, of Kalamazoo, Mich., and Hull, Brock & West, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher & McNamara, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Richey & Watts, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed pursuant to stipulation of counsel.