Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued January 22, 1953.

Decided February 6, 1953.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-02-06

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1963

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1953-02-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; William Alva Stewart, Judge.

Harry Price, New York City (Stonecipher & Cunningham, by Charles L. Cunningham, Pittsburgh, Pa., Matthew Sidney Biron, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Harold S. Ackerman and Hook & Ackerman, Inc.

William B. Jaspert, Pittsburgh, Pa., for C. Howard Hook and W. W. Miller, ind. and d/b/a/ Hook & Miller; and R. O. Graffius.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Points presented in this appeal were all discussed in the opinion of Judge Stewart in the district court. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc., D.C.W.D.Pa.1952, 103 F. Supp. 790. We think that he was right and affirm for the reasons set out in his opinion.

¶2

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Court

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Panel

Parties

petitioner:C. Howard HOOK and W. W. Miller, Doing Business as a Partnership Under the Name and Style of Hook & Miller
appellant:HOOK & ACKERMAN, Inc

Counsel

Harry Price, New York City (Stoneciptier & Cunningham, by Charles L. Cunningham, Pittsburgh, Pa., Matthew Sidney Birón, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Harold S. Ackerman and Hook & Ackerman, Inc.

William B. Jaspert, Pittsburgh, Pa., for C. Howard Hook and W. W. Miller, ind. and d/b/a Hook & Miller; and R. O. Graffius.