Legal Opinion
Penwell v. Newland
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 21, 1950No. 12271PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
In this case appellees’ first act after receipt of a purported notice of appeal was to claim in their reply brief that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. At the same time, they filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Petitioners filed an opposition citing two irrelevant cases not mentioned in the petition for rehearing. They also moved to substitute in the notice of appeal the names of the petitioners for that of the dead collector. Their more comprehensive petition for rehearing has lead to this opinion, deemed our opinion on our order dismissing the appeal.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 998 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Prudence Securities Advisory GroupSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Crump v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939
- University City, Mo. v. Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- Martin v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Southwestern Media, Inc. v. Albert M. Rau and Henry JacobowitzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Clara S. Brubaker v. Board of Education, School District 149, Cook County, Illinois, a Body Politicand CorporateCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
- Cook and Sons Equipment, Inc. v. Morris KillenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Floyd Van Hoose v. William P. EidsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
- Life Time Doors, Incorporated v. Walled Lake Door CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.