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.
SARTHER BAKING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1933 — 64 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
SARTHER BAKING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
64 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1933
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
SARTHER BAKING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 4739.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
April 20, 1933.
Lee I. Park, of Washington, D. C., and Irwin T. Gilruth, of Chicago, 111., for petitioner.
Sewall Key and C. M. Charest, both of Washington, D. C., and Dwight H. Green, of Chicago, 111., for respondent.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Whereas it was stipulated and agreed by the parties to the above-entitled cause, by written stipulation entered with the clerk of this court on April 27,1932, that the decision of this court entered under date of January 27, 1933, in canse No. 4738 [63 F.(2d) 68], should govern the decision in this cause, and that the printing of the record in this cause should be dispensed with and further proceedings suspended pending the court’s decision in cause No. 4738, and that upon the entry of judgment in said cause an order of mntatis mutandis should be entered in the case of Sarther Baking Company, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment entered in this eause on April 27, 1931, by the United States Board of Tax Appeals, may be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.