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.
Antny WILSON, Appellant, v. Joe ABRAHAM et al., 1927 — 21 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
General
Antny WILSON, Appellant, v. Joe ABRAHAM et al.
21 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
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
Antny WILSON, Appellant, v. Joe ABRAHAM et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
January 8, 1927.
No. 7528.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
William Neff and Lewis E. Neff, both of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
H. Watson Randolph, John A. Haver, Randolph Shirk, and Richard K. Bridges, all of Tulsa, Okl., for appellees.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed at costs of appellant, per stipulation of parties, etc.