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.
J. Raymond McCARL, Comptroller General of the United States, Patrick J. Hurley, Secretary of War, and Roderick L. Carmichael, Chief of Finance, United States Army, Appellants, v. Thomas H. EMERSON, Appellee, 1930 — 38 F.2d 944 · caselaw · US
General
J. Raymond McCARL, Comptroller General of the United States, Patrick J. Hurley, Secretary of War, and Roderick L. Carmichael, Chief of Finance, United States Army, Appellants, v. Thomas H. EMERSON, Appellee
38 F.2d 944·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·1930
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
J. Raymond McCARL, Comptroller General of the United States, Patrick J. Hurley, Secretary of War, and Roderick L. Carmichael, Chief of Finance, United States Army, Appellants, v. Thomas H. EMERSON, Appellee.
No. 4825.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
Argued Jan. 10, 1930.
Decided March 3, 1930.
Rehearing and Stay of Mandate Denied March 15, 1930.
Leo A. Rover and H. O. Hoagland, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
S. T. Ansell and E. S. Bailey, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDÉL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
The facts in this case do not differ materially from those in the ease just decided, McCarl v. Loud, 59 App. D. C. 238, 38 F.(2d) 943. For reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the decree in this also is affirmed.
Affirmed.