TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

C. C. Thomas v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company

C. C. Thomas v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, Webb & Knapp, Inc., Murph's Express, a Partnership, E. T. Cressman, Peter B. Taylor, Rice's Food Store, and Dawson, Nagel, Sherman and Howard, in the Matter of C. C. Thomas, Alleged Bankrupt

C. C. Thomas v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 327 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 17, 1964
Docket
No. 7286_1
Citations
327 F.2d 6671964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6365

Opinion

327 F.2d 667

C. C. THOMAS, Appellant, v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE COMPANY, Webb & Knapp, Inc., Murph's Express, a partnership, E. T. Cressman, Peter B. Taylor, Rice's Food Store, and Dawson, Nagel, Sherman and Howard, Appellees. In the Matter of C. C. THOMAS, Alleged Bankrupt.

No. 7286.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

February 17, 1964.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, William E. Doyle, Judge.

1

Allen A. Thoreen and Clayton H. Morrison, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

2

Richard H. Shaw, of Modesitt & Shaw, Denver, Colo., for appellee Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

3

Gerald M. Quiat, of Quiat, Seeman, Quiat & Woods, Denver, Colo., for appellee Webb & Knapp, Inc.

4

No appearances for other appellees.

5

Before BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges, and KERR, District Judge.

6

PER CURIAM.

7

A careful examination of the record in this case and consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties convince us that the findings and decision of the district court were correct. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed on the basis of that court's opinion reported in 211 F.Supp. 187 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 11972: 21976: 11987: 119702026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Elsub Corp.70 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1987)
  2. In re Acorn Electric Supply, Inc.348 F. Supp. 277 (E.D. Va. 1972)
  3. In re Naftalin & Co.315 F. Supp. 463 (D. Minnesota 1970)
  4. In re Acorn Electric Supply, Inc.339 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Va. 1972)
  5. In re DeGELLEKE CO., INC.411 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wis. 1976)

Most recent

  1. In re Elsub Corp.70 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1987)
  2. In re DeGELLEKE CO., INC.411 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wis. 1976)
  3. In re Acorn Electric Supply, Inc.348 F. Supp. 277 (E.D. Va. 1972)
  4. In re Acorn Electric Supply, Inc.339 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Va. 1972)
  5. In re Naftalin & Co.315 F. Supp. 463 (D. Minnesota 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Thomas, 211 F. Supp. 187 (D. Colo. 1962) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list