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.
ELECTROL, Inc., v. THOMAS D. RUSSO, Inc., 1933 — 68 F.2d 1001 · caselaw · US
General
ELECTROL, Inc., v. THOMAS D. RUSSO, Inc.
68 F.2d 1001·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1933
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
ELECTROL, Inc., v. THOMAS D. RUSSO, Inc.
No. 2886.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1933.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree in the District Court was for defendant with costs. Upon stipulation and motion the case was docketed, the decree of the District Court vacated, and the ease remanded forthwith to District Court with directions to enter a decree as follows: “The hill of complaint is dismissed without costs.”