Legal Opinion
Creel v. Creel
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided May 21, 1945No. Nos. 8770, 8823, 8910PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
The appeals in Nos. 8770 and 8823 are dismissed, on motion of appellee, because each was taken from a non-appealable order.1 The judgment of the court in No. 8910 is affirmed, as an examination of the record reveals no error and requires the conclusion that the trial court properly execised its discretion in confirming the order of sale.
Nos. 8770 and 8823 dismissed.
No. 8910 affirmed.
See D.C.Code (1940) § 17 — 101; Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U.S. 246, 248, 23 L. Ed. 318; Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co., 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 665; Electric Boat Co. v. East Hampton Shipping Co., 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 542; The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Electric Boat Co. v. East Hampton Shipping Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Butterfield v. UsherSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Chas. McCaul Co. v. HarrCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1921
- Fidelity Storage Co. v. JaquesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1932
- Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Creel v. CreelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- Kissell v. CreelDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1949