1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 89 F.Supp.
  5. 89 F.Supp. 176 (1949)
 

ANDREWS v. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO.

Civ. A. No. 1345-49.

89 F.Supp. 176 (1949)

ANDREWS v. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. et al.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

May 11, 1949.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles E. Ford, of Washington, D. C., for the plaintiff, for the motion.

Edmund L. Jones, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Telephone Company, opposed.

Ross O'Donoghue and Samuel K. Abrams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D. C., for defendant Fay, opposed.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

It appears from the affidavit of Bernice Franklin submitted in opposition to the motion for an injunction, that one Acolotti, or Alcott, is engaged in gambling activities as a professional gambler. This appears in that affidavit in considerable detail. It also appears in her affidavit that Acolotti transferred the headquarters of his activities to the apartment of the plaintiff in this case, who...

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