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.
Eula Day HERRING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1934 — 70 F.2d 790 · caselaw · US
Tax
Eula Day HERRING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
70 F.2d 790·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
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
Eula Day HERRING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 7215.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 24, 1934.
Robert Ash, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Sewall Key and Milford S. Zimmerman, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., ■ and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Frank B. Sehlosser, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The parties to the above numbered and entitled cause by written stipulation filed therein having agreed that the decision of this court in the cause, numbered 7214 [70 F.(2d) 785] on the docket of this court, wherein William E. Herring is petitioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is respondent, will control and be accepted by the parties to the first above numbered and entitled cause as the decision of this court; and this court having rendered its decision in said cause numbered 7214, wherein William E. Herring is petitioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is respondent, whereby the petition for review therein was denied; it is ordered that the petition for review in the first above-mentioned and entitled cause be, and the same is, denied.
SIBLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.