In re Friedman
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the CourtHough, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The story of Celia Friedman is inherently preposterous, as well as demonstrably false. I am convinced that she received (contemporaneously with the sale) $3,850, and has since acted as the confederate of her hiding husband. Considering the relationship between Mrs. Friedman and Levinson, and the connection by marriage with Wiltchick, I am convinced that the three have been acting in concert to protect the proceeds of the Friedman fraud from creditors. The $3,070 deposited by Max Levinson in the Jenkins Trust Company he received from Mrs. Friedman. His tale of hidden…
2Cited by9 opinions
- In re FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
- Henkin v. FousekCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
- In re LummusDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1913
- Cohen v. HesselCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922
- In re J. H. Small Shoe Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.