Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Proctor L. DOUGHERTY, William B. Ladue, and Sidney F. Taliaferro, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and District of Columbia, A Municipal Corporation, Appellants, v. Christian HEURICH, 1930 — 40 F.2d 815 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Proctor L. DOUGHERTY, William B. Ladue, and Sidney F. Taliaferro, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and District of Columbia, A Municipal Corporation, Appellants, v. Christian HEURICH
40 F.2d 815·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Proctor L. DOUGHERTY, William B. Ladue, and Sidney F. Taliaferro, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and District of Columbia, A Municipal Corporation, Appellants, v. Christian HEURICH.
No. 4950.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued March 7, 1930.
Decided April 7, 1930.
F. H. Stephens and V. E. West, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Leon Tobriner, Byron U. Graham, and Walter N. Tobriner, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This is a companion appeal to No. 4949, Dougherty et al. v. American Security & Trust Company et al., this day decided, 59 App. D. C. 301, 40 F.(2d) 813, involving an assessment on the front foot basis of lands belonging to appellee abutting on Wisconsin avenue.
This case is in all particulars the parallel of No. 4949, just decided, and presents another vivid illustration of the impossibility of equitably applying the front foot rule in assessments of property abutting on the avenues of this city.
The decree is affirmed, -with costs.