Legal Opinion
Ullman v. David Blustein & Bro.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 1, 1922No. 305PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOUGH, Circuit Judge.
The record does not contain any opihion rendered by the lower court upon eliminating Blustein from the scope of the examination order. We must therefore assume that the reasons assigned by Blustein for the order complained of are the reasons, and the only reasons, that actuated the lower court.
It is quite true that an order requiring examination under section 21a is discretionary; and if it is discretionary to grant the order, it is also discretionary to refuse it, and the order before us is in effect such refusal so far as Blustein is concerned. In re Weidenfeld, 254…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re WeidenfeldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- In re CliffeDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1899
- In re Madero Bros.District Court, S.D. New York · 1919
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Paramount Publix CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- In re Insull Utility Investments, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934
- Woodford v. Cosden &. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- In re Patterson-MacDonald Shipbuilding Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1922
- In re Underwriters Finance Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.