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.
READ PHOSPHATE COMPANY, Appellant, v. R. K. LANEY, Appellee, 1932 — 63 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
General
READ PHOSPHATE COMPANY, Appellant, v. R. K. LANEY, Appellee
63 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1932
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
READ PHOSPHATE COMPANY, Appellant, v. R. K. LANEY, Appellee.
No. 3386.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 28, 1932.
Samuel Want and Melvin Hyman, both of Darlington, S. C., for appellant.
Williams & Stewart, of Lancaster, S. C., and P. A. Murray, Jr., of Cheraw, S. C., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Order of dismissal and judgment of District Court reversed, and ease remanded to District Court for further proceedings.