In re Gilbough
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). As at present amended, Judicial Code, § 128 (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 1120), gives to this court jurisdiction to review “final decisions” of the District Courts ... ,, . , m all eases save where a direct review^’ may be had in the Supreme Court under section f 8 (?TP- 12************1S ^*vi-dent that that section does not permit direct review.
It is observable that section 128 gives to .j. , review of “final decisions ” evcent , s eomí f review or nnai decisions, except where a direct review of “the decision” may be had under section 238. But section 238 does…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Maryland v. Soper, JudgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Nix v. JamesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Evans v. District Judge of the United States for the Western District of TennesseeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
- Goldwyn Pictures Corp. v. Howells Sales Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Muir v. ChatfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ackerson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Dooley Improvements, Inc. v. NieldsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1934