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.
Ralph R. STRANGE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
Tax
Ralph R. STRANGE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
66 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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
Ralph R. STRANGE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 7278.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 1933.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Cirenit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion of respondent, consented to by petitioner, ordered petition to review in this cause dismissed; mandate forthwith.