Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)

Citation
Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)
Parent Document
Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)
Effective Date
1974-06-18

Other Sections in This Document (71)

Full Text

937 chars
. If counsel for Phipps had asked us also to direct dismissal of the complaint, we might well have done so, as we could do even in the absence of such a request. See Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 223 U.S. 519, 523, 32 S.Ct. 246, 56 L.Ed. 533 (1912); Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 171 F. 43, 51 (8 Cir. 1909); Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph International Corp., 308 F.2d 196, 200 (2 Cir. 1962); Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp., 409 F.2d 936, 952 (2 Cir. 1969). However, in light of counsel’s inadequate and intemperate brief, which dealt almost exclusively with the question whether plaintiff had a sufficient property interest to sustain a complaint and ignored the issues discussed in parts III and IV of this opinion,' we shall not do so. In contrast, we compliment counsel for Mrs. Lopez on her excellent and helpful brief, although we sustain her only in part.