Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

268 F.2d 584

Docket No. 14881.

Duckworth v. Helms

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 27, 1959. Decided May 21, 1959, Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 12, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-05-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1983

1 state decisions

3 counsel of record

Relies on Helms v. Duckworth · Rogers v. Schilling

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1959-05-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; George L. Hart, Jr., District Judge.

Mr. Arthur J. Hilland, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Ferdinand J. Mack, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. J. Roy Thompson, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. John E. Larson and Benton C. Tolley, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee Helms.

Messrs. Philip S. Peyser and Roger J. Whiteford, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for appellee National Bank of Washington.

Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

After our decision in Helms v. Duckworth, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 249 F.2d 482,1 the case went back for trial. The District Court, sitting as a court of equity, heard evidence adduced by both parties, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals. We think that the trial court correctly interpreted our decision in the earlier appeal, and that no error occurred affecting substantial rights.

¶2

Affirmed.

1

Annotated in 72 Harv.L.Rev. 555 (1959); 36 Tex.L.Rev. 829 (1958); 106 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1171 (1958)

/268/f2d/584 · .json · Public domain