From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baird v. Franklin

U.S.
Oct 9, 1944
323 U.S. 737 (1944)

Summary

implying a private action by virtue of section 26(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 voiding any contract made in violation of that statute

Summary of this case from Brown v. Bullock

Opinion

Nos. 111, 112.

October 9, 1944, OCTOBER TERM, 1944.


Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications. Messrs. Gran-ville Whittlesey, Jr., Ralstone R. Irvine, and Theodore S. Hope, Jr. for petitioner in No. Ill; and Mr. William Greenough for petitioner in No. 112. Messrs. William Dean Embree, Lawrence Bennett, and Edward N. Perkins for respondent. Reported below: 141 F. 2d 238.


Summaries of

Baird v. Franklin

U.S.
Oct 9, 1944
323 U.S. 737 (1944)

implying a private action by virtue of section 26(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 voiding any contract made in violation of that statute

Summary of this case from Brown v. Bullock
Case details for

Baird v. Franklin

Case Details

Full title:BAIRD v. FRANKLIN, TREASURER; NEW YORK YACHT CLUB v. FRANKLIN, TREASURER

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 9, 1944

Citations

323 U.S. 737 (1944)

Citing Cases

Leist v. Simplot

During the late 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's and the early 1970's there was widespread, indeed almost…

Brown v. Bullock

Accord: Hooper v. Mountain States Securities Corp., 5 Cir., 1960, 282 F.2d 195, 200-201; Errion v. Connell, 9…