Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. John W. Preston, of Los Angeles, Cal., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Miss Cecilia H. Goetz, of Washington, D.C., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. John W. Preston, of Los Angeles, Cal., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Miss Cecilia H. Goetz, of Washington, D.C., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
See more information ...
Smart Summary

REED v. TAX COURT OF UNITED STATES.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued the Tax Court of the United States to require it to admit him to practice. He alleged that he was being discriminated against, arbitrarily and contrary to law, because of not being a licensed attorney or a certified public accountant. He had twice been examined as an applicant for admission and rejected. But since he was and is eligible under the rules of the Tax Court to take a third examination he has not exhausted his remedy in the Tax Court, and the District Court was clearly right in dismissing his complaint. United States v. Hawley, 50 App. D.C. 137, 269 F. 479. We need not consider the several additional reasons for affirmance which are urged on behalf of appellee.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

REED v. TAX COURT OF UNITED STATES
(Aug 5, 1946)