Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

142 F.2d 456

Docket No. 10433.

Lee v. Bowles

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 10, 1944.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1944-01-10

2 counsel of record

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1944-01-10

¶1Luce, Forward, Lee & Kunzel and Albert J. Lee, all of San Diego, Cal., for appellants.

¶2George J. Burke, Gen. Counsel, and Thomas L. Emerson, Associate General Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., Myer C. Symonds, Regional Litigation Atty., of *457San Francisco, Cal. John A. Donnelly, Chief Atty., and B. Kenneth Goodman, Chief Enforcement Atty., both of San Diego, Cal., and Fleming James, Jr., Chief, Litigation Branch, Abraham Glasser, Sp. Appellate Atty., and Harry L. Shniderman, Atty., 'O. P. A., all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Upon consideration of the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal herein as moot, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that the said motion be and hereby is granted, and that a decree be filed and entered herein dismissing appeal, without prejudice to appellee’s right to make application to the Court below for further injunctive relief against appellants in accordance with the complaint and the prayer thereto, mandate to issue in accordance with our Rule 28.

/142/f2d/456 · .json · Public domain