Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim, 285_1 (1951)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 285_1 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 07, 1951
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 189 F.2d 702 89 U.S.App.D.C. 406 Marie E. BARWICK, Petitioner v. Hinda S. MANHEIM, Respondent. Misc. No. 285. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued May 24, 1951. Decided June 7, 1951. Jo V. Morgan, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James M. Desmond, Washington, D.C., with whom Roy B. Kelly, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent. Before EDGERTON and BAZELON, Circuit Judges, and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge sitting by designation. PER CURIAM. 1
More

189 F.2d 702

89 U.S.App.D.C. 406

Marie E. BARWICK, Petitioner
v.
Hinda S. MANHEIM, Respondent.

Misc. No. 285.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 24, 1951.
Decided June 7, 1951.

Jo V. Morgan, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

James M. Desmond, Washington, D.C., with whom Roy B. Kelly, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent.

Before EDGERTON and BAZELON, Circuit Judges, and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

1

The petition for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied. Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S. Ct. 582, 87 L. Ed. 746; Newman v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer