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.
Edwin R. BUTLER, etc., Appellant, v. J. W. BYRNES, Receiver, etc., et al., 1927 — 22 F.2d 1009 · caselaw · US
Tax
Edwin R. BUTLER, etc., Appellant, v. J. W. BYRNES, Receiver, etc., et al.
22 F.2d 1009·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
Edwin R. BUTLER, etc., Appellant, v. J. W. BYRNES, Receiver, etc., et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
November 14, 1927.
No. 7972.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Thomas W. White, Walter E. Mayne, and E. C. Hartman, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Byron P. Babbitt, Harry C. Barker, and Paul Bakewell, Jr., all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
[MAJORITY — PEE CURIAM.]
PEE CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed with prejudice,, at costs of appellant, but without taxation of attorney’s fee, per stipulation of parties.