Legal Opinion
Riley v. Ritz
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 29, 1952No. Nos. 11287, 11288PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
We affirm. Our affirmance as to defendants Peach, Hoffman and Bull is because jurisdiction was not obtained over them. They were not personally served within this jurisdiction, they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and it does not appear that they are inhabitants of the District. Our affirmance as to defendant Ritz rests upon the authority of De Arnaud v. Ainsworth, 1904, 24 App.D.C. 167, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 163, dismissed per curiam, 1905, 199 U.S. 616, 26 S.Ct. 743, 50 L.Ed. *83335; Farr v. Valentine, 1912, 38 App.D.C. 413; Smith v. O’Brien, 1937, 66 App.D.C. 387, 88 F.2d 769, and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Glass v. IckesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- De Arnaud v. AinsworthCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1904
- United States ex rel. Parravicino v. BrunswickCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1934
- Farr v. ValentineCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1912
- Smith v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riley v. Ritz. Riley v. BullCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952