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:
More415 F.2d 882, Ross E. COX, General Contractor, and Fidelity and DepositCo. McClelland v. Hammond, 12 Colo. App. However, the case recognizes that where the party accepting the building objects to the character of the work, as the Authority did, he cannot be held to have waived his right to damages.
418 F.2d 359, Robert J. KEEFE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.George J. GEANAKOS et al. Asked by the court whether a teacher has a right to say to the school committee that it is wrong if, in fact, its decision was arbitrary, counsel candidly and commendably (and correctly) responded in the affirmative.
420 F.2d 695, 73 L.R.R.M., 1, The narrow issue in this case is whether the Labor Board was warranted in interpreting a pre-election letter respondent employer circulated among its employees as an improper prediction of the effect of unionization, depriving the employees of a free choice.
417 F.2d 1337, 69-2 USTC P 9739, Henry ZOOLOOMIAN, Petitioner, Appellant, v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Appellee., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Elmer J. Kelsey and Michael L. Paup, Attys., Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
420 F.2d 674, James D. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Edward J. CHOQUETTE, Jonathan G. Wells III, Harvey Beit andT. As the judgment of eviction rendered by the state court still stands, plaintiff has no cause of action unless relief is granted against that judgment.
, ALDRICH, Chief Judge. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162. If plaintiffs mean advise the staff, the Department has a right not to want its employees advised by a large group while they are presently engaged in other matters just as much as it has not to have them, to use plaintiffs' word, intimidated.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., Robert D. Power, Boston, Mass., with whom Stanton T. Lawrence, Jr., Charles E. McKenney, New York City, Peabody Arnold, Boston, Mass., and Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor Adams, New York City, were on petition, for petitioner., PER CURIAM.
418 F.2d 878, Louis ZUCKERMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Rita L. TATARIAN, Georgiana Kelly, Rita Tatarian, Patricia Kelly, Defendants, Appellees., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. Therefore, such a presumption can continue only while there is no credible evidence of the fact.
Seven days later, on June 11 the 30th day after May 12 the government filed a motion pursuant to Rule 4(a) to extend the time period for filing the Notice of Appeal, based on an allegation and affidavit of the requisite excusable neglect. Pasquale v. Cohen, 296 F.Supp.
LaVine advised that the letters be sent to Iafolla. Here six months had passed before there was any hint of damage or a claim and therefore even immediate notice upon receipt of the Petzold letter would probably not have enabled St. Paul to compile a better file than the one offered to it.
418 F.2d 725, Santiago MORALES RIVERA et al., ALDRICH, Chief Judge. The basis of the motion is that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a collective bargaining agreement now mentioned for the first time called for arbitration of grievances. Co. v. J. D. Adams Mfg.
, WOODBURY, Senior Circuit Judge., 4, McParlin's next step habeas corpus cases are not appealable in Rhode Island, 10-9-22, G.L. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).3, 7, McParlin is not entitled to relief under the rules established by the Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct.
, ALDRICH, Chief Judge. Commonwealth v. Benoit, 1964, 347 Mass. 1, 196 N.E.2d 228., 1, This Note, which appellee Sisk cites for the proposition that the courts are divided, actually refers to but one case in which a nonconsent statute has been held prospective only.
417 F.2d 780, BOWMAN BOURDON, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v.Robert E. ROHR et al., Philip M. Cronin, Boston, Mass., with whom Phillip S. Cronin, Plymouth, Mass., and Withington, Cross, Park Groden, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellants. Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp.
415 F.2d 1371, 11 A.L.R.Fed., ALDRICH, Chief Judge., 2, The following month, in connection with a suit brought against appellant in the state court by appellees to collect their debts, that court informed appellees that it would not go behind the August discharge and look at the 1965 proceedings.
846, 7 L. Ed. 2d 795. Nor can we assume that the casual newspaper reader would read all the articles or read them critically or analytically enough to realize that an obvious mistake must have been made in identifying Kattar instead of Pappagianis as the plaintiff's law partner.
412 F.2d 804, Linda MEGANTZ et al. 431, 1 L. Ed. 2d 415. As to this, counsel told the court at the motion for continuance that they had leads indicating that some of the defendants could obtain testimony to the effect that they were outside the building, but that they had not had time to pursue it.
416 F.2d 1188, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Alcide Paul FONTAINE, Defendant, Appellant., 2, The only point of any possible consequence on this appeal relates to the court's refusal to withdraw the marihuana exhibit from the consideration of the jury when it withdrew the marihuana count.
416 F.2d 414, LOCAL 2, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS, Defendant, Appellant. that the 1967 assessment was upon the present members, and was merely measured by the size of the past membership at a certain date.
*, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. They did not file the removal bond required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) to secure the costs and disbursements incurred by reason of the removal proceedings should it be determined that the case was not removable or was improperly removed.
