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.
William Maxwell CONLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; Frederick William DOCKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; Carl Elmer LINDSAY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1931 — 53 F.2d 1080 · caselaw · US
Tax
William Maxwell CONLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; Frederick William DOCKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; Carl Elmer LINDSAY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
53 F.2d 1080·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1931
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
William Maxwell CONLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Frederick William DOCKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Carl Elmer LINDSAY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 6689.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 14, 1931.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to motion of counsel for respondent, ordered petitions to review in the above cause dismissed for failure of petitioners to file record and docket cause; mandates forthwith.