1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 321 F.2d
  5. 321 F.2d 533 (1963)
 

SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON CO. v. UNITED STATES DIST. CT., SO. CAL.

No. 18742.

321 F.2d 533 (1963)

The SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 23, 1963.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Lawrence T. Lydick, J. Lane Tilson, Nat Rosin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Ely, Kadison & Quinn, Stuart Kadison, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We hold that petitioners were entitled to the ten days notice of the hearing here in controversy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 94, sub. a(8) plus three days extra for mailing as provided by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that they are still entitled to it.

Otherwise, in our judgment, the rather abrupt commencement of the hearing is not subject to review here at this time on an application for a writ. Obviously it is not contemplated...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases