Kolodner v. Harris

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

April 22, 1970.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-04-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1970

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Maggio v. Zeitz · Norwood Earl Redfearn and Jimmy Lamar Ricks v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1970-04-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Harry A. Margolis, New York City and Louis J. Sagner, Baltimore, Md., on brief for appellant.

Leon H. A. Pierson and Joseph Rosenthal, Baltimore, Md., on brief, for appellee.

Before WINTER, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

In this appeal from the district court's affirmance of the referee's refusal to hold the appellee in contempt for violation of a turnover order, we find oral argument unnecessary and summarily affirm. Under the evidence presented, the referee and the district court could find that the appellee is presently incapable of complying with the order by any other means than reconstruction of the inventory demanded. The district court's conclusion that the appellee is not in contempt was, therefore, warranted. Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 69, 68 S.Ct. 401, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948).

¶2

Affirmed.