United States ex rel. Lang Body Co. of Delaware v. Board of Tax Appeals

D.C. Circuit

United States ex rel. Lang Body Co. of Delaware v. Board of Tax Appeals

29 F.2d 437, 58 App. D.C. 237, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8312, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2699

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 1928

DocketNo. 1440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 F.2d 437 (United States ex rel. Lang Body Co. of Delaware v. Board of Tax Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Lang Body Co. of Delaware v. Board of Tax Appeals, 29 F.2d 437, 58 App. D.C. 237, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8312, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2699 (D.C. Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The relator’s petition seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain the Board of Tax Appeals from taking certain official action, and the immediate question is whether a rule to show cause shall issue to the respondents. The rule is denied upon the ground that it appears from the averments of the petition that the issue thereby raised can best be presented by appeal to an appellate court; it being the approved practice that prohibition will not issue where there is an adequate remedy by court appeal. United States ex rel. Morris v. Scott, 25 App. D. C. 88; United States ex rel., Holmead v. Barnard, 29 App. D. C. 431.

The petition is accordingly dismissed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The relator’s petition seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain the Board of Tax Appeals from taking certain official action, and the immediate question is whether a rule to show cause shall issue to the respondents. The rule is denied upon the ground that it appears from the averments of the petition that the issue thereby raised can best be presented by appeal to an appellate court; it being the approved practice that prohibition will not issue where there is an adequate remedy by court appeal. United States ex rel. Morris v. Scott, 25 App. D. C. 88; United States ex rel., Holmead v. Barnard, 29 App. D. C. 431.

The petition is accordingly dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F.2d 437, 58 App. D.C. 237, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8312, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-lang-body-co-of-delaware-v-board-of-tax-appeals-cadc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack