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.
MOTOR TRANSIT TERMINAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. E. L. CORD, Respondent, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1015 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MOTOR TRANSIT TERMINAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. E. L. CORD, Respondent
66 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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
MOTOR TRANSIT TERMINAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. E. L. CORD, Respondent.
No. 7213.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 1933.
Harry J. McClean, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Milton K. Young, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of petition for allowance of appeal under section 24b of tbe Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 47 (b), and of objections to allowance of appeal, ordered petition for appeal denied.