Harrelson v. Lewis, 418 F.2d 246 (4th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Harrelson v. Lewis, 418 F.2d 246 (4th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Sharp (ca4, 2010-11-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sharp
4th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Although Sharp failed to satisfy the mandates of Rule 28, which in many instances may result in dismissal of the appeal, see, e.g., Harrelson v. Lewis, 418 F.2d 246, 247 (4th Cir.1969), this Court has a "measure of discretion ... whereunder it may consider an appellant’s claim of error, even despite its inadequate assertion, especially when the pertinent record appears fully to be before the court, and the controverted questions have actually been argued.” Indemnity Ins.
cited Cited "see" Bruce Dickerson Stevens v. Security Pacific National Bank, Bruce Dickerson Stevens v. Kindel & Anderson
9th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrelson v. Lewis, 418 F.2d 246 (4th Cir. 1969); cf. Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 336 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1964) (former 9th Cir. Rule 18).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William L. Harrelson, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Agriculture, and the State of South Carolina
v.
George Eugene Lewis, Trustee, in the Matter of Colonial Distributing Company, Bankrupt
13296_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 12, 1969.
418 F.2d 246
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

418 F.2d 246

William L. HARRELSON, Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Agriculture, and the State of South
Carolina, Appellants,
v.
George Eugene LEWIS, Trustee, Appellee.
In the Matter of COLONIAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Bankrupt.

No. 13296.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1969.
Decided Nov. 12, 1969.

E. N. Brandon, Asst. Atty. Gen. of South Carolina (Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, on brief) for appellants.

Roy D. Bates, Columbia, S.C., for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is a bankruptcy case in which the trustee successfully resisted a claim for priority asserted by the holder of certain alcohol warehouse receipts.

2

The appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to comply with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which requires the appellant to include in his brief a statement of the case and a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review, and for failure to comply with Rule 30 which requires that appellant prepare and file an appendix to his brief.

3

We add, however, that consideration of the parties' briefs and our examination of the record convince us that the appeal is lacking in substance and that the judgment of the District Court is correct.

4

Appeal dismissed.