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.
GOOD HUMOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE BIRD ICE CREAM AND CHARLOTTE RUSSE, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
Corporations
GOOD HUMOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE BIRD ICE CREAM AND CHARLOTTE RUSSE, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
66 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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
GOOD HUMOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE BIRD ICE CREAM AND CHARLOTTE RUSSE, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 455.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 5, 1933.
Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., Samuel E. Darby, Jr., of New York City, and John E. Robb, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
W. Lee Helms, of New York City, for appellee.
John P. Neary, Ramsay Hoguet, and Theodore E. Simonton, all of New York City, for National Dairy Products Corporation.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree (1 P. Supp. 850) affirmed on opinion below.