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.
Walter PROFFITT v. UNITED STATES, 1927 — 19 F.2d 1021 · caselaw · US
General
Walter PROFFITT v. UNITED STATES
19 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1927
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
Walter PROFFITT v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 13, 1927.
No. 4748.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee; Xenophon Hicks, Judge.
Everett Greer, of Newport, Tenn., and W. T. Kennerly, of Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
George C. Taylor, U. S. Atty., of Knoxville, Tenn.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of District Court affirmed.