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.
Luther H. REICHELDERFER, Herbert B. Crosby, and John C. Gotwals, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellants, v. Henry I. QUINN, George J. Mueller, Jr., Henry Orth, Jr., et al., Appellees, 1931 — 53 F.2d 1079 · caselaw · US
General
Luther H. REICHELDERFER, Herbert B. Crosby, and John C. Gotwals, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellants, v. Henry I. QUINN, George J. Mueller, Jr., Henry Orth, Jr., et al., Appellees
53 F.2d 1079·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1931
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
Luther H. REICHELDERFER, Herbert B. Crosby, and John C. Gotwals, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellants, v. Henry I. QUINN, George J. Mueller, Jr., Henry Orth, Jr., et al., Appellees.
No. 5230.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted Nov. 6, 1931.
Decided Dec. 7, 1931.
William W. Bride and Robert E. Lynch, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants-.
Henry I. Quinn and George E. Sullivan, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITE, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
It is agreed by counsel that the issue presented in this appeal and also the parties involved are identical with those appearing in Quinn et al. v. Dougherty et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia, decided by this court January 7, 3929, 58 App. D. C. 339, 30 F.(2d) 749. It is only necessary now to say that, consistently with onr decision in tho former case, we affirm the decree of the lower court herein appealed from.
Affirmed.