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.
In the Matter of the Petition of Henry OBERMILLER et al., 1934 — 73 F.2d 1008 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Petition of Henry OBERMILLER et al.
73 F.2d 1008·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1934
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
In the Matter of the Petition of Henry OBERMILLER et al.
No. 375, Original.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 6, 1934.
Prank J. Taylor, of St. Paul, Neb., and Robert J. Webb, A. C. R. Swenson and William Ritchie, Jr., all of Omaha, Neb., and C.' E. Talbott, of Winner, S. D., for petitioner.
M. B. Culhane, of Minneapolis, Minn., D. S. Elliott, of Sioux Palls, S. D., and Olaf Eidem, of Brookings, S. D., for respondent.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Motion for permission to file petition dismissed without costs to either party in this court, on motion of petitioner.