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.
CONCRETE MIXING & CONVEYING CO., Plaintiff Appellee, v. ULEN CONTRACTING CORPORATION and Shandaken Tunnel Corporation, Defendants Appellants, 1926 — 12 F.2d 931 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
CONCRETE MIXING & CONVEYING CO., Plaintiff Appellee, v. ULEN CONTRACTING CORPORATION and Shandaken Tunnel Corporation, Defendants Appellants
12 F.2d 931·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
CONCRETE MIXING & CONVEYING CO., Plaintiff Appellee, v. ULEN CONTRACTING CORPORATION and Shandaken Tunnel Corporation, Defendants Appellants.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 3, 1926.)
No. 332.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
James L. Steuart, of New York City, for appellants.
Stephen J. Cox, of New York City, and Williams, Bradbury, McCaleb & Hinkle, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree (12 F.[2d] 929) affirmed.