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.
John SOVETSKY v. UNITED STATES of America, 1933 — 64 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
John SOVETSKY v. UNITED STATES of America
64 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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
John SOVETSKY v. UNITED STATES of America.
No. 4865.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
April 12, 1933.
Louis Greenberg and George M. Teamey, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Dwight H. Green, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill.
Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BALTZELL, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Now this day come the parties by their counsel and this canso now comes on to he heard on the printed record and briefs of counsel and on oral arguments by Mr. Louis Greenberg, counsel for appellant, and by Mr. Walter E. Wiles, counsel for appellee.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in this canse he, and the same is hereby, affirmed. It is further ordered that the mandate of this court issue forthwith.