Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

289 F.2d 902

Docket No. 16060.

Stuart v. Meeker

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 28, 1961. Decided May 11, 1961, Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 7, 1961.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-05-11

3 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-05-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2002

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

7019611970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. J. Robert Carey, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Michael F. Keogh and John F. Costello, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. John F. Burke, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Patrick J. Head, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

The parties had been partners in an air conditioning business. Stuart sold his interest to Meeker and agreed that for two years he would not 'interfere' with Meeker's business, but would work for him as a part-time employee. Meeker sued Stuart for alleged violations of the dissolution agreement and was awarded damages and other relief. Stuart appeals.

¶2

We accept the trial court's interpretation of the dissolution agreement, and are of the opinion that the evidence supported its decision.

¶3

Affirmed.

/289/f2d/902 · .json · Public domain