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.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. Juan G. GALLARDO, Treasurer, Defendant, Defendant in Error, 1927 — 21 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
Tax
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. Juan G. GALLARDO, Treasurer, Defendant, Defendant in Error
21 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the First 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
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. Juan G. GALLARDO, Treasurer, Defendant, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
November 8, 1927.
No. 2134.
Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico.
Nelson Gammans, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C., George C. Butte, Atty. Gen., and J. A. Lopez Acosta, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an action at law, brought in the federal District Court of Porto Rico, to recover taxes paid under protest. The plaintiff seeks to recover $8,000.13, that being the amount of taxes assessed under the Porto Rico Tax Act of August 20, 1925 (Acts Porto Rico 1925, No. 85), and paid under protest. The tax was assessed upon automobile tires and other articles manufactured by the plaintiff in the United States and imported into and sold by it in Porto Rico. In the District Court judgment was entered for the defendant, from which this writ was prosecuted.
We regard the questions presented as concluded by our decisions in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gallardo, Treas. (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 926; Sanchez Morales & Co. v. Gallardo, Treas. (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 550; and Porto Rico Tax Appeals (C. C. A.) 16 F. (2d) 545.
The judgment of the District Court of Porto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the defendant in error.