Hammerman, II v. Arlington Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 385 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Hammerman, II v. Arlington Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 385 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Leon Burke (ca6, 2003-11-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leon Burke
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 653 (11th Cir.1984) ("The first advisory committee note shows clearly that proceedings such as [pretrial hearings to determine the admissibility of the evidence the government intends to offer at trial] do not fall into the Rule 43 catch-all, ‘every stage of the trial.' ”); Taylor v. United States, 385 F.2d 835, 836 (8th Cir.1967) (in which the defendant complained that Rule 43 had been violated because he had not been present at several preliminary motions disposed of prior to commencement of trial, and the court responded that "it is doubtf…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stout v. United States
E.D. Tenn. · 1973 · confidence medium
Taylor v. United States, C.A.8th (1968), 385 F.2d 835, 836-837 [1].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
I. H. Hammerman, Ii, Trustee of Panitz & Co., Inc., F. G. Enterprises, Inc., Joppa Farms, Inc., and P. & R. Service and Supply, Inc., Debtors
v.
Arlington Federal Savings & Loan Association
11663.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 10, 1967.
385 F.2d 835
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

385 F.2d 835

I. H. HAMMERMAN, II, Trustee of Panitz & Co., Inc., F. G.
Enterprises, Inc., Joppa Farms, Inc., and P. & R.
Service and Supply, Inc., Debtors, Appellant,
v.
ARLINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 11663.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 6, 1967.
Decided Nov. 10, 1967.

Fenton L. Martin, Baltimore, Md. (Frederick J. Singley, Jr., and Hinkley & Singley, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.

David F. Albright, Baltimore, Md. (Bradley T. J. Mettee, Jr., and Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, MARVIN JONES,[*] Senior Judge, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[*~835]1

While we think the District Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the matter, particularly to determine the bona fides of the partnership in which the bankrupt was a limited partner, we agree, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court, filed on July 6, 1967,[1] that the bankrupt's interest as a limited partner gave the bankruptcy court no power to administer real estate owned by the partnership or to enjoin its sale under foreclosure by the mortgagee.

[*~836]2

Affirmed.

*

Sitting by designation

1

In re Panitz & Co., D.Md., 270 F.Supp. 448