Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

212 F.2d 480

Docket No. 13574.

Dale v. Hill

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 1954.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-04-21

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1968

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hill v. Dale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1954-04-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Warren A. Taylor, William V. Bog-gess, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellant.

¶2George B. McNabb, Jr., Robert A. Parrish, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.

¶3Before STEPHENS, HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellees obtained a judgment against the appellants for the possession of a certain business lot in the Town of Fairbanks, and for rentals claimed to be due 13 Alaska 690. The sole specifications of error made on the appeal from the judgment are that the court erred in sustaining objections to the introduction of allegedly competent, relevant and material evidence offered by the appellants, and that it erred in overruling appellants’ objections to the introduction of allegedly incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial evidence produced on behalf of the appellees. We have examined the record, and find that no error of a prejudicial character was committed in the respects indicated.

¶6The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

/212/f2d/480 · .json · Public domain