Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    G. Nicholas Mas v. Henry B. Fowler and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., of Charlotte, 337 F.2d 414, 4th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from 1964 in which: 1) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion. 2) At the appeal hearing, the appellant brought up circumstances not known to the district judge that could have influenced the action. 3) The Fourth Circuit noted there was still time under Rule 60(b) for the district court to inquire into these matters and potentially grant relief, without expressing an opinion on whether it should.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    G. Nicholas Mas v. Henry B. Fowler and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., of Charlotte, 337 F.2d 414, 4th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views1 page
    This document is a court case summary from 1964 in which: 1) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion. 2) At the appeal hearing, the appellant brought up circumstances not known to the district judge that could have influenced the action. 3) The Fourth Circuit noted there was still time under Rule 60(b) for the district court to inquire into these matters and potentially grant relief, without expressing an opinion on whether it should.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1964-10-09 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 337 F.2d 414 Docket: 9399_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from 1964 in which: 1) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion. 2) At the appeal hearing, the appellant brought up circumstances not known to the district judge that could have influenced the action. 3) The Fourth Circuit noted there was still time under Rule 60(b) for the district court to inquire into these matters and potentially grant relief, without expressing an opinion on whether it should.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    20 views1 page

    G. Nicholas Mas v. Henry B. Fowler and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., of Charlotte, 337 F.2d 414, 4th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from 1964 in which: 1) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion. 2) At the appeal hearing, the appellant brought up circumstances not known to the district judge that could have influenced the action. 3) The Fourth Circuit noted there was still time under Rule 60(b) for the district court to inquire into these matters and potentially grant relief, without expressing an opinion on whether it should.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    337 F.

    2d 414

    G. Nicholas MAS, Appellant,


    v.
    Henry B. FOWLER and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., of
    Charlotte, Appellees.
    No. 9399.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Oct. 8, 1964.
    Decided Oct. 9, 1964.

    G. Nicholas Mas, pro se.


    Hunter M. Jones, Charlotte, N.C. (Jones, Hewson & Woolard, Charlotte,
    N.C., on brief), for appellees.
    Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and GORDON,
    District Judge.
    PER CURIAM.

    The order of dismissal will be affirmed for we find no abuse of discretion by


    the District Court.

    At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant, appearing pro se, called attention to
    circumstances which apparently were not known to the District Judge and
    which might or might not have influenced the action taken. Without expressing
    an opinion as to this, we point out that there is still time under Rule 60(b)
    Fed.R.Civ.P. for the matters to be inquired into and for relief to be granted in
    the discretion of the court.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like