Indian Refining Co. v. Dallman

Seventh Circuit

Indian Refining Co. v. Dallman

119 F.2d 417, 27 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 136, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3725, 27 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 136

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1941

Docket7427

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 119 F.2d 417 (Indian Refining Co. v. Dallman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Indian Refining Co. v. Dallman, 119 F.2d 417, 27 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 136, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3725, 27 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 136 (7th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court entered March 11, 1940. Prior to the entry of the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment was predicated, an opinion was filed by Judge Briggle which has since been published. Indian Refining Company v. Dallman, Collector of Internal Revenue, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 455. The opinion fully discloses the facts, issues and legal conclusions upon which the District Judge found in favor of the plaintiffs. In addition to the authorities therein cited and relied upon, the District Court of the Southern District of New York subsequently decided a case involving the same issues, and reached the same conclusion. Texas Company v. Higgins, Collector of Internal Revenue, 32 F.Supp. 428.

After a careful study of the record and authorities, we are of the opinion that the District Court convincingly and properly disposed of the issues adversely to defendant’s contention. Having thus concluded, we think no useful purpose could be served by a reiteration of the reasoning there employed.

We therefore adopt by reference, the opinion of the District Judge as the opinion of this court, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court entered March 11, 1940. Prior to the entry of the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the judgment was predicated, an opinion was filed by Judge Briggle which has since been published. Indian Refining Company v. Dallman, Collector of Internal Revenue, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 455. The opinion fully discloses the facts, issues and legal conclusions upon which the District Judge found in favor of the plaintiffs. In addition to the authorities therein cited and relied upon, the District Court of the Southern District of New York subsequently decided a case involving the same issues, and reached the same conclusion. Texas Company v. Higgins, Collector of Internal Revenue, 32 F.Supp. 428.

After a careful study of the record and authorities, we are of the opinion that the District Court convincingly and properly disposed of the issues adversely to defendant’s contention. Having thus concluded, we think no useful purpose could be served by a reiteration of the reasoning there employed.

We therefore adopt by reference, the opinion of the District Judge as the opinion of this court, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 417, 27 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 136, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3725, 27 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indian-refining-co-v-dallman-ca7-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack