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.
Florence McDONALD, nee Hickman, v. ROXANA PETROLEUM CORPORATION and Marland Refining Company, 1929 — 41 F.2d 1005 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Florence McDONALD, nee Hickman, v. ROXANA PETROLEUM CORPORATION and Marland Refining Company
41 F.2d 1005·United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·1929
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
Florence McDONALD, nee Hickman, v. ROXANA PETROLEUM CORPORATION and Marland Refining Company.
No. 101.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 10, 1929.
Lee Williams, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and MeDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed June 10,1929, on motion.