United Wholesale, Inc. v. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury

Eighth Circuit

United Wholesale, Inc. v. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury

203 F.2d 198, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3354

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1953

Docket14630_1

StatusPublished

This text of 203 F.2d 198 (United Wholesale, Inc. v. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Wholesale, Inc. v. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, 203 F.2d 198, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3354 (8th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review an order of the District Supervisor, Twelfth Supervisory District, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, denying the petitioner’s application under Section 4 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 49 Stat. 977, 27 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., for a liquor wholesaler’s basic permit. The order was based upon a finding that the petitioner, if granted the basic permit applied for, “is not likely to maintain operations under such a permit in conformity with Federal law.” See 27 U.S.C.A. § 204(a) (2) (B). The jurisdiction of this Court to review is based on 27 U.S.C.A. § 204 (h).

The petitioner challenges the validity of the order under review on the ground that there is an inadequate evidentiary basis for it. The Act expressly provides that, upon review, the finding of the Secretary of the Treasury as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall’ be conclusive. 27 U.S.C.A.§ 204(h).

In this case counsel for the petitioner have put the respondents to unnecessary trouble and expense. The petitioner’s printed record is inadequate for purposes of review. It does not conform to our Rule 10(b). It includes only parts of the essential evidence. It does not contain the findings and conclusions upon which the order under review is based. The respondents found it necessary to prepare and file an 80-page printed supplement to the petitioner’s 43-page printed record.

There is little or nothing to be gained by complaining about such matters, but a serious failure to observe our rules at least absolves us from any obligation to those at fault other than to state our conclusion.

We have reviewed the printed record furnished by the petitioner and the supplement thereto filed by the respondents. We are convinced that there was ample evidentiary and legal support for the order under review and the findings upon which it is based. The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review an order of the District Supervisor, Twelfth Supervisory District, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, denying the petitioner’s application under Section 4 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 49 Stat. 977, 27 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., for a liquor wholesaler’s basic permit. The order was based upon a finding that the petitioner, if granted the basic permit applied for, “is not likely to maintain operations under such a permit in conformity with Federal law.” See 27 U.S.C.A. § 204(a) (2) (B). The jurisdiction of this Court to review is based on 27 U.S.C.A. § 204 (h).

The petitioner challenges the validity of the order under review on the ground that there is an inadequate evidentiary basis for it. The Act expressly provides that, upon review, the finding of the Secretary of the Treasury as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall’ be conclusive. 27 U.S.C.A.§ 204(h).

In this case counsel for the petitioner have put the respondents to unnecessary trouble and expense. The petitioner’s printed record is inadequate for purposes of review. It does not conform to our Rule 10(b). It includes only parts of the essential evidence. It does not contain the findings and conclusions upon which the order under review is based. The respondents found it necessary to prepare and file an 80-page printed supplement to the petitioner’s 43-page printed record.

There is little or nothing to be gained by complaining about such matters, but a serious failure to observe our rules at least absolves us from any obligation to those at fault other than to state our conclusion.

We have reviewed the printed record furnished by the petitioner and the supplement thereto filed by the respondents. We are convinced that there was ample evidentiary and legal support for the order under review and the findings upon which it is based. The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 F.2d 198, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-wholesale-inc-v-humphrey-secretary-of-the-treasury-ca8-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack