From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corbett v. Chandler

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
May 25, 1953
202 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1953)

Summary

In Corbett, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court without comment except to reference its decision in Kowalski, which was issued the same day.

Summary of this case from Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League

Opinion

No. 11623.

February 20, 1953. Writ of Certiorari Granted May 25, 1953. See 73 S.Ct. 949.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; John H. Druffel, Judge.

Maurice H. Koodish and Morse Johnson, Cincinnati, Ohio, Frederic A. Johnson, New York City, for appellants.

Dinsmore, Shohl, Sawyer Dinsmore, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Baker, Hostetler Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel in open court, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the order of the District Court dismissing appellants' complaint be and is hereby affirmed. See Kowalski v. Chandler, 6 Cir., 202 F.2d 413.


Summaries of

Corbett v. Chandler

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
May 25, 1953
202 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1953)

In Corbett, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court without comment except to reference its decision in Kowalski, which was issued the same day.

Summary of this case from Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League
Case details for

Corbett v. Chandler

Case Details

Full title:Jack CORBETT and El Paso Baseball Club, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: May 25, 1953

Citations

202 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1953)

Citing Cases

State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc.

The court also noted that Congress had had the ruling under consideration, but had not seen fit to legislate…

Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chi. Cubs Baseball Club, LLC

The Rooftops also contend that the exemption is inapplicable to Count II, which involved the acquisition of…