The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More241 F.2d 910, The CENTURY INSURANCE CO., Ltd., Queen Insurance Company ofAmerica, First National Insurance Company ofAmerica, and American Indemnity Company, Appellants, v.Jean Q. MOONEY and Marcel L. Mooney, Appellees., United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. 9, 56 L. Ed. 81;
248 F.2d 777, Henry P. ARSENAULT, Jr., Petitioner, Appellant, v.John A. GAVIN, Warden or Principal Officer, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Respondent, Appellee., 1, From the standpoint of federal habeas corpus, this has been from the start a desperate and hopeless case. 397, 97 L. Ed. 469.
249 F.2d 572, The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, v.Joseph DOX, Plaintiff, Appellee. We affirm the judgment of the district court. The present might indeed be such a case. Blair v. Baltimore Ohio R. R. Co., 1945, 323 U.S. 600, 65 S. Ct. 91, 93 L. Ed. 41;
The plaintiff filed his remittitur for this amount but unfortunately neither the judge's memorandum nor the remittitur stated whether the $13, 000 was to be subtracted from the verdict of $61, 000 or from the verdict plus interest of $12, 677.83 which totalled $73, 677.83.
249 F.2d 442, Alfred SPEAR, Claimant, Appellant, v.Alfred B. STAPLETON, Trustee, et al. Edward William Day, Judge., Jacob S. Temkin, Providence, R. I., with whom Harvey M. Spear, New York City, was on brief, for appellant., Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
249 F.2d 442, BOSTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, Appellant, v.STATE REALTY CO. OF BOSTON, Inc., Respondent, Appellee., Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts;, Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges., PER CURIAM.
249 F.2d 912, A. B. COOLEY, d/b/a, etc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v.BARTEN WOOD, Inc., et al. On May 9, 1955 plaintiff notified Lutz, the principal contractor, in writing of the default in payment by the subcontractor. Cf. United States for Use and Benefit of P. A. Bourquin Co. v. Chester Const.
248 F.2d 818, 73 A.L.R. Four were taken out by Joseph on his own life, naming his brother Henry as beneficiary, in a total amount of $45, 000., 21, 'It was also voted, at said meeting that both Joseph E. and Henry E. Prunier would issue each five of their shares to Irene M. Prunier, Clerk.
250 F.2d 858, John V. GIKAS, Defendant, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., 3, Appellant urged many alleged errors at the trial which would require a vacation of the judgment of conviction, with a remand for a new trial.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. However, the Examiner recommended that the petitioner be denied citizenship because of his failure to establish honorable service in the armed forces for a period or periods aggregating three years as required by the above statute.
248 F.2d 485, HANDY CAFE, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v.JUSTICES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT et al. The defendants, not named, were described in the complaint as the members of the Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
, 4, Following the teaching of Johnson v. United States, supra, the three appellants filed their separate notices of appeal from the district court's order of June 25, 1957. 55, 49 L. Ed. 178. The Supreme Court has told us that an indigent appellant is not remediless in such an extreme case.
, 2, Appellant having filed his main brief on the merits, the Government moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the original papers on file in this court and the printed record appendix furnished by appellant are insufficient to present the questions argued by appellant in his brief.
, 4, In 1948 a revenue agent, after auditing the taxpayerhs income and excess profits tax returns for the years 1944 and 1945, notified the taxpayer that he proposed to disallow a claimed unused excess profits credit carry-over from 1943 to 1945 and to disallow a certain bad debt deduction.
In that case, however, the defendant's vessel took the inside berth previously occupied by the plaintiff's vessel and this was one of the circumstances which the court held created a duty of reasonable care., 1938, 94 F.2d 170, certiorari denied 1938, 303 U.S. 660, 58 S. Ct.
249 F.2d 71, GARDEN HOMES, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Norman P. MASON, Commissioner, Federal Housing Administration, Defendant, Appellee., 5, It is said by the plaintiff that the dismissal should have been without prejudice because the district court lacked jurisdiction of the case.
, Carleton L. Feener, pro se, appellant. Only the sheerest technicality was involved in the order of substitution, whereby the parent corporation, having absorbed its wholly owned subsidiary by merger, was allowed to be substituted nunc pro tunc for the original nominal plaintiff in this case.
248 F.2d 809, Sylvio J. DROLET, Petitioner, Appellant, v.John J. GAVIN, Principal Officer, Massachusetts CorrectionalInstitution, Respondent, Appellee. Incidentally the court stated: 'The judge was justified in assuming that the attorney was not present by prearrangement with the defendant.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. Counts one and four of the complaint allege that the defendants converted to their own use the plaintiff's idea for a tax service disclosed in correspondence between the plaintiff and Griswold in 1950. A copy of the format of Part I was enclosed.
249 F.2d 714, Finbar F. CREEDON, p.p.a., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.Robert B. LORING et al. Such testimony was admitted, as the court repeatedly told the jury, solely on the issue of Toomey's credibility, and not as affirmative evidence of any facts stated by Moores to have occurred.
