Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Geer, Executor, Vs. Bowers

Geer, Executor, vs Bowers

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-22-1962
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100245

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
371 U.S. 36
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Other Taxes

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Geer, Executor,

Respondent

Bowers

Excerpt

geer, executor, v. bowers - 371 u.s. 36 (1962) u.s. supreme court geer, executor, v. bowers, 371 u.s. 36 (1962) 371 u.s. 36 geer, executor, et al. v. bowers, tax commissioner of ohio. appeal from the supreme court of ohio. no. 304. decided october 22, 1962. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 173 ohio st. 264, 181 n. e. 2d 268. h. herschel hunt for appellants. mark mcelroy, attorney general of ohio, and theodore r. saker and joseph l. white, assistant attorneys general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. consolidated rock products co. v. city of los angeles, 371 u.s. 36 (1962) 371 u.s. 36 (1962) "> u.s. supreme court consolidated rock products co. v. city of los angeles, 371 u.s. 36 (1962) 371 u.s. 36 consolidated rock products co. et al. v. city of los angeles. appeal from the supreme court of california. no. 307. decided october 22, 1962. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 57 cal. 2d 515, 370 p.2d 342. howard c. westwood for appellants. roger arnebergh and bourke jones for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice douglas and mr. justice harlan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. page 371 u.s. 36, 37

Full Judgment

GEER, EXECUTOR, v. BOWERS - 371 U.S. 36 (1962)
U.S. Supreme Court GEER, EXECUTOR, v. BOWERS, 371 U.S. 36 (1962) 371 U.S. 36

GEER, EXECUTOR, ET AL. v. BOWERS, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 304.
Decided October 22, 1962.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 173 Ohio St. 264, 181 N. E. 2d 268.

H. Herschel Hunt for appellants.

Mark McElroy, Attorney General of Ohio, and Theodore R. Saker and Joseph L. White, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, <a href="/100245"> 371 U.S. 36 </a> (1962) 371 U.S. 36 (1962) "> U.S. Supreme Court CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 371 U.S. 36 (1962) 371 U.S. 36

CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. ET AL. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 307.
Decided October 22, 1962.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 57 Cal. 2d 515, 370 P.2d 342.

Howard C. Westwood for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh and Bourke Jones for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 371 U.S. 36, 37



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial