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.
O. J. ERTSGAARD, Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. MINNESOTA CENTRAL CREAMERIES, Inc., et al., Appellees, 1929 — 31 F.2d 1011 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
O. J. ERTSGAARD, Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. MINNESOTA CENTRAL CREAMERIES, Inc., et al., Appellees
31 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
O. J. ERTSGAARD, Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. MINNESOTA CENTRAL CREAMERIES, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
January 17, 1929.
No. 8445.
Louis A. Reed, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Kerr, Nelson, Bums & Mohan, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal docketed and dismissed, at costs of appellant, for failure to comply with provisions of rule 11 of this court, etc., ou motion of appellees.