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.
Daniel B. LUTEN, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY BRIDGE COMPANY, 1928 — 25 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
Daniel B. LUTEN, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY BRIDGE COMPANY
25 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1928
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
Daniel B. LUTEN, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY BRIDGE COMPANY.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
January 3, 1928.
No. 7931.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.
Justin D. Bowersock, of Kansas City, Mo., and Russell T. MacFall, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.
Samuel W. Sawyer and Richard S. Righter, both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion of appellee, under rules 23 and 24.