In Re Luma Camera Service, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. To obtain the turnover order,, the trustee had the burden of proving, by ■ “clear and convincing evidence/’ 1 these two facts: (a) That Maggio wrongfully took (i.e., stole) the merchandise in November and December 1941, and (b) that he still possessed it, or its proceeds, when the referee entered that order one year and nine months later, in August 1943. With respect to the first, the trustee showed the shortage which occurred at the end of 1941; there was sufficient evidence to support the referee’s finding as to that fact (i. e., the finding was not “clearly…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Curry v. McCanlessSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Blackstone v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Oriel v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Board of Assessors for Parish of OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Maggio v. ZeitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Chadwick v. JaneckaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Noell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Ricci v. OkinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.