Willheim v. Murchison, 312 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Willheim v. Murchison, 312 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: E. L. Cord, Etc. v. Calvin J. Smith (ca9, 1964-11-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." E. L. Cord, Etc. v. Calvin J. Smith
9th Cir. · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Willheim v. Murchison, 2 Cir., 1963, 312 F.2d 399 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Else Willheim and Randolph Phillips
v.
John D. Murchison and Clint W. Murchison, Jr., Co-Partners D/B/A Murchison Brothers Investors Diversified Services, Inc. And Investors Mutual, Inc.
27806_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 18, 1963.
312 F.2d 399
Published

312 F.2d 399

Else WILLHEIM and Randolph Phillips, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
John D. MURCHISON and Clint W. Murchison, Jr., co-partners
d/b/a Murchison Brothers; Investors Diversified
Services, Inc.; and Investors Mutual,
Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 191, Docket 27806.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 10, 1963.
Decided Jan. 18, 1963.

Samuel E. Gates, of Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates, New York City (J. Edward Fowler, Robert L. King, and J. Asa Routree, of Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates, New York City, on the brief for appellant Investors Diversified Services, Inc.; Taggart Whipple, Philip C. Potter, Jr., and Roland W. Donnem, of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, on the brief for appellant Investors Mutual, Inc.; and Stuart N. Updike and Lee W. Meyer, of Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City, on the brief for appellants John D. Murchison and Clint W. Murchison, Jr.), for defendants-appellants.

Randolph Phillips, pro se, and Leonard I. Schreiber, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before CLARK, KAUFMAN, and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

We hold that the case is governed by Fleischer v. Phillips, 2 Cir., 264 F.2d 515, cert. denied 359 U.S. 1002, 79 S.Ct. 1139, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030, and Marco v. Dulles, 2 Cir., 268 F.2d 192, and accordingly dismiss the appeal.