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.
Rothensies, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Cassell, Surviving Executor, 1939 — 308 U.S. 525 · caselaw · US
Tax
Rothensies, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Cassell, Surviving Executor
308 U.S. 525·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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
No. 183.
Rothensies, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Cassell, Surviving Executor.
December 13, 1939.
Mr. William R. Spofford for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Craig Huston, Administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. of the Estate of George F. Uber, deceased, substituted as the party respondent in the place and stead of Linford B. Cassell, per stipulation of counsel, on motion of