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.
Pete GUNN, Sherman Gardner, W. M. Wright, L. F. Wright, and W. T. Eddy v. UNITED STATES, 1926 — 15 F.2d 1011 · caselaw · US
General
Pete GUNN, Sherman Gardner, W. M. Wright, L. F. Wright, and W. T. Eddy v. UNITED STATES
15 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1926
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
Pete GUNN, Sherman Gardner, W. M. Wright, L. F. Wright, and W. T. Eddy v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 15, 1926.)
No. 4656.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee; Hurry B. Anderson, Judge.
John E. Gamer, of Springfield, Tenn., and John W. Hilldrop, of Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiffs in error.
A. Y. MeLane, TJ. S. Atty., and Howard Shofner, Asst, U. S. Atty., both of Nashville, Tenn.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of the District Court affirmed.