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.
Tax
Frank HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
49 F.2d 1078·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1931
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
Frank HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 5550.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 9, 1931.
For former opinion, see 44 F.(2d) 756.
John W. Ford, of Youngstown, Ohio (Kennedy, Manchester, Ford, Bennett & Powers, of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for petitioner.
John Y. Groner, of Washington, D. C. (G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch, C. M. Charest, and Allin H. Pierce, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing in this ease is granted, and the order of the Board of Tax Appeals reversed, upon authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Burnet v. Logan, 51 S. Ct. 550, 75 L. Ed.-, decided May 18, 1931.