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.
Eliza BARNETT et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SHAFFER OIL & REFINING CO. et al., Defendants in Error, 1926 — 17 F.2d 1009 · caselaw · US
General
Eliza BARNETT et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SHAFFER OIL & REFINING CO. et al., Defendants in Error
17 F.2d 1009·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
Eliza BARNETT et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SHAFFER OIL & REFINING CO. et al., Defendants in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
December 17, 1926.)
No. 7540.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Fred Fulghum and George S. Ramsey, both of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.
Robert M. Rainey, Streeter B. Flynn, George M. Green, Frank G. Anderson, B. B. Blakeney, and Hubert Ambrister, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Writ of error dismissed, at costs of plaintiffs in error, per stipulation of parties.