Copeland v. United Shoe Machinery Co.
William A. Copeland v. United Shoe Machinery Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Stevens.
For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoh, Black, Vredgnburgii, Heppenheimer, Taylor—11. For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.