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.
Cornelia THOMAS v. UNITED STATES, 1928 — 27 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
General
Cornelia THOMAS v. UNITED STATES
27 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1928
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
Cornelia THOMAS v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 13, 1928.
No. 5110.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; Paul Jones, Judge.
Davis & Lipps, of Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
A. E. Bemsteen, U. S. Atty., and Howell Leuck, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Cleveland, Ohio.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of District
Court affirmed, upon authority of opinion of Supreme Court in Casey v. United States, 276 U. S. 413, 48 S. Ct. 373, 72 L. Ed. -, filed April 9, 1928.