Lenoble v. Kane

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted June 6, 1950.

Decided June 23, 1950.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1950-06-23

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1987

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on 91 F. Supp. 39 - Burlington Mills Corporation v. Roy Fabrics · United States v. Lynch · 79 F. Supp. 457 - In re Lenoble

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1950-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See'also 79 F.Supp. 457..

¶2David Krause, New York City, Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, of counsel, for Abraham Lenoble, bankrupt-appellant.

¶3Samuel Kom-oroff, New York City, Harry Malter, New York City, of counsel; Phillip L. Winter, New York City, on the brief, for Margaret Kane, objecting creditor-appellee.

¶4Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Affirmed on the ground that the disposition of the proceeding by the referee and the court below is clear in view of the terms of the statute. See United States v. Lynch, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 696.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Cross reference: See'also 79 F.Supp. 457..

Source: CourtListener

Court

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Judge

PER CURIAM.
By the court
Read opinion →

Counsel

David Krause, New York City, Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, of counsel, for Abraham Lenoble, bankrupt-appellant.

Samuel Kom-oroff, New York City, Harry Malter, New York City, of counsel; Phillip L. Winter, New York City, on the brief, for Margaret Kane, objecting creditor-appellee.