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.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ESTATE of H. C. STONE, Estate of W. L. Hodges, W. L. Hodges, Trustee, H. C. Chenoworth, M. H. Graham, and G. H. Moore, Respondents, 1933 — 63 F.2d 997 · caselaw · US
Tax
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ESTATE of H. C. STONE, Estate of W. L. Hodges, W. L. Hodges, Trustee, H. C. Chenoworth, M. H. Graham, and G. H. Moore, Respondents
63 F.2d 997·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1933
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
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ESTATE of H. C. STONE, Estate of W. L. Hodges, W. L. Hodges, Trustee, H. C. Chenoworth, M. H. Graham, and G. H. Moore, Respondents.
No. 7078.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 6, 1933.
Dempsey & Mackay and Howard W. Reynolds, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion of counsel for respondents, ordered petition to review herein dismissed for failure of petitioner to file record and docket cause; mandate forthwith.