Legal Opinion

Rahayel v. McCampbell

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 11, 1932No. 133PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWAN, Circuit Judge., It is unnecessary to set forth the facts upon which the prohibition administrator acted in revoking the appellant’s permit because consideration of the merits of the controversy is precluded for reasons about to he stated. By its terms the permit would have expired, if unrevoked, with the year 19301; and before the appeal was argued more than a year had elapsed after the purported revocation, whether the date of the administrator’s action be taken as June 27th or December 18th. Hence, though we should decide the revocation to have been invalid, we could give no relief.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. American Book Co. v. State of Kansas Ex Rel. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  3. Security Mutual Life Insurance v. PrewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. Commonwealth Perfume & Toilet Water Manufacturing Co. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  5. Interboro Beverage Corp. v. DoranCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Army Corps of EngineersDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2008
  2. Wynne v. KutzCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API