Bey v. Muldoon, 354 F.2d 1005 (3rd Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Bey v. Muldoon, 354 F.2d 1005 (3rd Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abdullah Ahmad Bey
v.
Francis Muldoon, Alfred Corry and Stewart Sobelman, Trustees and Robert Kelly, Administrator of a Special Fund (2/5/62) Abdullah Ahmad Bey
15133_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jan 27, 1966.
354 F.2d 1005
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

354 F.2d 1005

Abdullah Ahmad BEY et al.
v.
Francis MULDOON, Alfred Corry and Stewart Sobelman, Trustees and Robert Kelly, Administrator of a Special Fund (2/5/62), et al.
Abdullah Ahmad Bey, Appellant.

No. 15133.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued September 14, 1965.

Decided January 27, 1966.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Joseph S. Lord, III, Judge.

Sidney J. Smolinsky, Philadelphia, Pa. (Bernard Sacks, Dorfman, Pechner, Sacks & Dorfman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

William R. Deasey, Philadelphia, Pa. (Kelly, Deasey & Scanlan, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Corry, Kelly, Muldoon, Sobelman and Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.

Marvin I. Barish, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Borowsky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ILA, Trustees of Pension Fund et al.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge and KALODNER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Much of the previous history of this case is set out in 217 F.Supp. 401 (E.D. Pa.1962), id., 404 (E.D.Pa.1963) and 223 F.Supp. 489 (E.D.Pa.1963), and need not be repeated here. The agreement was reformed in accordance with the opinion last cited and as required by it. See id. supra, 496. An examination of the record and of the briefs and consideration of the oral arguments lead us to the conclusion that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the order of the court below requiring judgment to be entered for the defendants and dissolving the injunction restraining the transfer of money from the royalty fund will be affirmed.