From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bulletin Company v. Origoni

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 1967
387 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

Opinion

No. 20704.

May 8, 1967.

Mr. John R. McConnell, Philadelphia, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. William J. Curtin, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Thomas M. O'Malley, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, McGOWAN and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


This cause came on for hearing on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

This interlocutory appeal certifies for our consideration the question as to whether Layne v. Tribune Co., 63 App. D.C. 213, 71 F.2d 223, cert. denied, 293 U.S. 572, 55 S.Ct. 83, 79 L.Ed. 670 (1934), and Neely v. Philadelphia Inquirer Co., 61 App.D.C. 334, 62 F.2d 873 (1932), have been overruled sub silentio. We hold that they have not.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying the motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the complaint be, and it is hereby, reversed.


Summaries of

Bulletin Company v. Origoni

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 1967
387 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Case details for

Bulletin Company v. Origoni

Case Details

Full title:BULLETIN COMPANY, Appellant, v. Victor E. ORIGONI, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 8, 1967

Citations

387 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

Citing Cases

Moncrief v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co.

The policy considerations underlying the holding in Neely were stated by the court as follows: Although the…

Margoles v. Johns

333 F. Supp. at 946. See Bulletin Co. v. Origoni, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 387 F.2d 240, cert. denied, 389 U.S.…