Bulletin Company, Appellant, v. Victor E. Origoni, Appellee, 387 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Annotate this CaseMr. John R. McConnell, Philadelphia, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. William J. Curtin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Thomas M. O'Malley, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, McGOWAN and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on for hearing on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
This interlocutory appeal certifies for our consideration the question as to whether Layne v. Tribune Co., 63 App. D.C. 213, 71 F.2d 223, cert. denied, 293 U.S. 572, 55 S. Ct. 83, 79 L. Ed. 670 (1934), and Neely v. Philadelphia Inquirer Co., 61 App.D.C. 334, 62 F.2d 873 (1932), have been overruled sub silentio. We hold that they have not.
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying the motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the complaint be, and it is hereby, reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
