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.
CITY OF BOWDLE et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ex rel., etc., 1926 — 11 F.2d 1004 · caselaw · US
General
CITY OF BOWDLE et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ex rel., etc.
11 F.2d 1004·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1926
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
CITY OF BOWDLE et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ex rel., etc.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 23, 1926.)
No. 6757.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.
Prank McNulty and Dwight Campbell, both of Aberdeen, S. D., for appellants.
Henry Deutseh, 'of Minneapolis, Minn., and R. P. Williamson and St. Clair Smith, both of Aberdeen, S. D., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed, without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation of parties.