Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 10, 1927No. 5232PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.

The instant proceeding was brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, appellee, to give finality and effect to litigation of unusual persistency. In re Rury (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 331; Bowen v. Rury, 117 Wash. 30, 200 P. 789; Cunningham v. Mitchell, 126 Wash. 294, 218 P. 386; Mitchell v. Cunningham (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 813. Upon the going down of the mandate in the last-named case, the decree of the lower court was modified to comply with the views expressed in our reported opinion. On January 14,1926, the judge of the superior court of Washington for Benton county indorsed his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
  2. Cunningham v. MitchellWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Mitchell v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
  4. Bowen v. RuryWashington Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sexton v. BarryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
  2. United States v. WalleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
  3. Hazel v. Van BeekCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API