Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

185 F.2d 259

Docket No. 11105.

Hoge v. Deutsch

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 13, 1950.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1950-11-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1950

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Deutsch v. Hoge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1950-11-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1George E. Taylor, Toledo; Ohio' (Taylor, Cruey & Kelb, Toledo, Ohio; of counsel; George E. Taylor, Toledo, Ohio, Emmett D. Lusk, Wapakoneta, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.

¶2Ned L. Mann, Cleveland, Ohio (Ned L. Mann, Cleveland, Ohio), for appellee.

¶3Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This cause was heard upon the transcript of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel. It was heard below by the District Judge without the intervention of a jury. The Judge filed an opinion including findnigs of fact and conclusions of law. D.C. *26094 F.Supp. 33. The findings of fact are not dearly erroneous.

¶6It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment appealed from be and the same is in all things affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in the decision of the district court, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed February 15, 1949.

¶7The appellee is not entitled to additional relief by way of special damages as set out in his brief. There was no cross appeal.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/185/f2d/259 · .json · Public domain