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.
STASO MILLING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lyman FLOWERS, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1040 · caselaw · US
General
STASO MILLING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lyman FLOWERS
61 F.2d 1040·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1932
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
STASO MILLING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lyman FLOWERS.
No. 9604.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 12, 1932.
Charles M. Polk and Charles P. Williams, ' both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Everett Hullverson, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal docketed, judgment of United States District Court reversed, and cause remanded to District Court, per stipulation of parties.