Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

George Toregas v. Helen L. Susser, A. R. Seelye, 16186 (1961)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 16186 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 13, 1961
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 290 F.2d 368 110 U.S.App.D.C. 177 George TOREGAS, Appellant, v. Helen L. SUSSER, A. R. Seelye, Appellees. No. 16186. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued March 29, 1961. Decided April 13, 1961. Mr. Leonard B. Sussholz, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Mr. Marvin P. Sadur, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellant. Mr. J. E. Bindeman, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Dexter M. Kohn and Leonard W. Burka, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for ap
More

290 F.2d 368

110 U.S.App.D.C. 177

George TOREGAS, Appellant,
v.
Helen L. SUSSER, A. R. Seelye, Appellees.

No. 16186.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 29, 1961.
Decided April 13, 1961.

Mr. Leonard B. Sussholz, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Mr. Marvin P. Sadur, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. J. E. Bindeman, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Dexter M. Kohn and Leonard W. Burka, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee Susser.

Mr. Leonard C. Collins, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for appellee Seelye.

Before FAHY, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The District Court acted within its permissible discretion in denying plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and receiver pendente lite; but in doing so the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which went beyond the necessities of the preliminary stage of the case and which seem to decide matters more appropriately left for decision after the trial. For this reason, exercising our authority under 28 U.S.C. 2106 (1958), the findings and conclusions are set aside, the subject matter thereof to await full development of the facts and consideration of the law applicable thereto.

2

While we do not require the case to be advanced for trial we suggest that its nature might well lead the District Court to give further consideration to the motion to advance.

3

Affirmed.

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