Legal Opinion
In re Plaza Shoe Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 1, 1926No. 6PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
We regard the referee’s first finding as equivalent to saying that the trustee had proved his ease by a preponderance of proof, the usual role in civil cases. It is impossible to know whether the District Court affirmed the referee’s order because it reversed the first finding, or because it affirmed the second finding and thought the first irrelevant. If the rule of proof in such proceedings is the same as in civil causes, as we believe, it would be error to affirm the referee’s order without reversing his first finding. We have, however, no jurisdiction to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Samel v. DoddCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1906
- In re StavrahnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- In Re H. Magen Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- United States ex rel. Paleais v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- In re D. Levy & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hoffer v. TelloneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025
- In Re OrielCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Walnut Creek Milling Co. v. Grain Products Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1926
- In Re OrielCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- In Re OrielCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.