Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Emil Horwitz v. Food Town, Incorporated and Elmo Harelson

Emil Horwitz v. Food Town, Inc. & Elmo Harelson, 367 F.2d 584 (5th Cir. 1966)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-11-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • treated as one ground in motion for summary judgment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Emil Horwitz v. Food Town, Incorporated and Elmo Harelson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
HORWITZ v. FOOD TOWN, INCORPORATED,367 F.2d 584(5th Cir. 1966)
Emil HORWITZ, Appellant, v. FOOD TOWN, INCORPORATED and Elmo Harelson,
Appellees.
No. 22979.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 7, 1966.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, E. Gordon West, Judge.
R. Boatner Howell, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., Hyman R. Friedman, New York City, for appellant.

Hamlet D. May, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
Before JONES and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This was a diversity action by a real estate broker licensed under the laws of New York, but not licensed under the laws of Louisiana, for a brokerage fee. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Its opinion is reported at241 F. Supp. 1. We are of the view that Woods v. Interstate Realty Company,337 U.S. 535,69 S.Ct. 1235,93 L.Ed. 1524(1949) is controlling and the Judgment must be

Affirmed.Page 585