Legal Opinion

Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd. Muelhens, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided March 16, 1931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWAN, Circuit Judge.

The mandate of this court issued during the present term. No action has yet been taken under it because a dispute has arisen between the parties concerning the decree to be entered, and the District Court is in doubt as to what the mandate, in the light of our opinion, directs. Under these. circumstances the present motion is an appropriate procedure. We may either recall and amend the mandate, as was done in Sutherland v. Norris, 33 F.(2d) 899 (C. C. A. 3), or we may deny the motion with an expression of our views for the guidance of the District Court, as we did in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. Machlett & SonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  2. Sutherland v. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pepsico, Inc. v. The Grapette Company, Inc., and Grapette-Aristocrat, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
  2. Favour v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
  3. Pepsico, Inc. v. The Grapette Company, Inc., and Grapette-Aristocrat, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API