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.
LEWIS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1928 — 26 F.2d 465 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
LEWIS et al. v. UNITED STATES
26 F.2d 465·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1928
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
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
LEWIS et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 7, 1928.
No. 7492.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; John C. Pollock, Judge.
On motion for rehearing. Denied.
For former opinion, see 22 F.(2d) 760.
R. L. Davidson and W. I. Williams, both of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
After careful consideration of the matters presented in the petition for rehearing, we adhere to the conclusions announced in the opinion filed to which that petition is addressed. It appears, however, that through similarity of situations the decision of this court in Lewis et al. v. United States, 14 F.(2d) 369, was treated as having been rendered in the instant ease. It is now brought to our attention that this was a misconception, which the arguments of counsel at the hearing failed to remove. The opinion, therefore, should he, and hereby is, modified in that particular. However, Lewis et al. v. United States, 14 F.(2d) 369, was referred to, not as declaring the law of this case, but as announcing principles which we regarded, and still regard, as convincing and decisive of certain of the issues before us. Therefore the modification now made in no wise affects the ultimate conclusion reached.
The rehearing prayed’ is accordingly denied.