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.
Charles H. NAUTS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BUCKEYE RELINER PRODUCING CO., 1930 — 48 F.2d 1079 · caselaw · US
Tax
Charles H. NAUTS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BUCKEYE RELINER PRODUCING CO.
48 F.2d 1079·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·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
Charles H. NAUTS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BUCKEYE RELINER PRODUCING CO.
No. 5700.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 11, 1930.
W. J. Mahon, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Marshall, Melhom, Marian & Martin, of Toledo, Ohio, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Docketed and dismissed by court order, pursuant to motion of counsel for appellee.