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.
LIPPMAN'S, Incorporated, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the 23rd District of Pennsylvania, Appellee, 1931 — 46 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
Tax
LIPPMAN'S, Incorporated, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the 23rd District of Pennsylvania, Appellee
46 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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
LIPPMAN’S, Incorporated, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the 23rd District of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
No. 4477.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1931.
Charles H. Sachs and Sachs & Caplan, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Louis E. Graham, U. S. Atty., and John A. McCann, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Pittsburgh, Pa. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and E. F. McMahon, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
We are satisfied that all that can be said in an opinion by this court has been set forth in that of the court below. We limit ourselves to adopting as our own that opinion and affirming the judgment below. The opinion below reads as follows.
Published in full in 41 F. (2d) 550.