Affiliations

• Rosenwald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  Cites Williams v. Chamberlain — Chamberlain -v. Williams, 62 Ill. App. 423, reversed.

• Rosenwald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929-06-07 · cited 19×

  This case involved an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals regarding tax deficiencies assessed against Julius Rosenwald for income reported on his 1919-1921 returns, specifically dividends, interest, rents, and bond coupons from securities he claimed to have assigned to the Julius Rosenwald Fund, a charitable entity he controlled. The court affirmed the Board's decision that most of this income remained taxable to Rosenwald personally, holding that the assignments did not constitute completed gifts because the securities stayed in his possession without delivery, allowing him to retain dominion and control. The opinion relied on Illinois gift law requiring absolute irrevocability, change of possession, and inability of the donor to repossess the property. It reversed only as to the Third Liberty Loan bond coupons, finding those assignments effective for tax purposes, while affirming on all other items.

  taxes

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,831 words)

• Biller v. Meyer

  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929-05-20 · cited 5×

  In Biller v. Meyer, the plaintiff sued defendant Biller for negligence after Biller's parked car rolled down a graded street in Milwaukee and struck him, causing injuries; the plaintiff also named Biller's insurer, Inter-State Exchange, as a co-defendant. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff after a jury verdict, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the evidence supported a finding of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because the car moved shortly after Biller left it, contradicting his testimony that the brakes were set and the gear was in reverse. It further concluded that the record contained sufficient proof of permanent injury to justify the jury's damages award and that Wisconsin Statute section 85.25 permitted the direct action against the insurer as a proper party defendant.

  torts & liabilityprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (730 words)

• Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928-05-24 · cited 11×

  This case concerned an appeal by several western railroads from a district court order denying their petition to impeach an arbitration award resolving wage disputes with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen under the Railroad Labor Act. The arbitration board, composed of two railroad appointees, two employee appointees, and two neutrals, initially deadlocked on the unions' main demand for a $1 daily pay increase and filed a memorandum of inability to agree. After some members declined to attend further sessions, a majority of the board reconvened and issued an award granting smaller increases on the primary demand along with rulings on several related demands concerning locomotive weights and minimum earnings. The core issue was whether this majority award was validly rendered and enforceable despite the partial board and the initial deadlock.

  labor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (17,284 words)

• Slick v. United States

  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924-09-03 · cited 10×

  The case involved a grain dealer convicted of filing a false 1917 income tax return that omitted over $100,000 in profits from Board of Trade transactions, after he had been penalized by the IRS for the omission. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by consolidating two indictments, that the IRS penalty placed him in double jeopardy, that the evidence was insufficient because he had sent a letter explaining the omission, and that certain testimony and cross-examination questions were improperly handled. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that consolidation was proper and required under the statute, that the double jeopardy claim lacked merit, that the evidence—including inconsistencies in the defendant's explanations and doubts about the letter—supported the jury's verdict of guilt, and that no other claimed errors were reversible.

  criminal lawtaxes

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,107 words)