Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 10996. Attorney(S) David F. Smith, Washington, D.C., for appellants. The court declined to hear argument for appellees. Louis Ottenberg, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellees Pollin. Edmund D. Campbell and Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellees Riggs Park Land Co., Inc., Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., and Frank W. Marsalek. Benjamin W. Dulany, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for these appellees. Louis Ottenberg, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee Riggs Park Land Co., Inc. Edmund D. Campbell and Samuel Scrivener, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellees Perpetual Building Ass'n and Junior F. Crowell and Samuel Scrivener, Jr., Trustees. G. Bowdoin Craighill, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Thomas F. Burke. M.M. Doyle, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Emilie K. Bucy. S. Albert Mickler, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Michael M. Doyle. Thomas F. Burke, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Henrietta K. Evans. David A. Hart, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellees Charles M. Plunkert, C.M. Plunkert Co., Plunkert Maddock, Inc., and Mary E. Spinks. Joseph A. Cantrel, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Charles W. Bucy. H. Max Ammerman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellee Sidney Z. Mensh. Judges Henry White Edgerton Elijah Barrett Prettyman George Thomas Washington See more information ... Smart Summary Case Summary: SMITH et al. v. POLLIN et al., No. 10996 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 8, 1951) Factual and Procedural Background The appeal in Smith et al. v. Pollin et al. was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 31, 1951, and decided on June 8, 1951. The opinion is issued per curiam by a panel consisting of Judges Edgerton, Prettyman, and Washington. The record reflects that the appellants filed a brief of approximately 110 pages which the court found to grossly violate Rule 17(g). Because of that violation the court limited oral argument. After examining the entire record, the court concluded that dismissal of the appeal would not result in injustice and dismissed the appeal. Legal Issues Presented Whether dismissal of the appeal is warranted where the appellant's brief "grossly violates" Rule 17(g). Arguments of the Parties The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments. Table of Precedents Cited No precedents were cited in the provided opinion. Court's Reasoning and Analysis The court's analysis, as stated in the per curiam opinion, proceeded as follows: The court identified that the appellants' brief—about 110 pages in length—grossly violated Rule 17(g). On that basis the court limited the time for oral argument. Despite the procedural deficiency, the court examined the entire record. After review, the court determined that dismissing the appeal would not result in injustice to the appellants. Accordingly, the court concluded dismissal was appropriate. Holding and Implications Holding: Appeal dismissed. Implications: The direct effect of the decision is the dismissal of the appellants' appeal. The opinion states that the dismissal does not produce an injustice to the appellants. The opinion does not discuss broader legal consequences or establish new legal precedent beyond the disposition in this case. Show full summary ... SMITH et al. v. POLLIN et al. PER CURIAM. Because appellant's brief of some 110 pages grossly violates our Rule 17(g) we limited oral argument. Nevertheless we have examined the entire record. We find that no injustice is done in dismissing the appeal. Appeal dismissed.