In re Baker, 297 U.S. 691 (1936). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Baker, 297 U.S. 691 (1936). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest negative: Ross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (ca1, 1948-07-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Ross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1st Cir. · 1948 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. Johnson v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 844 . 10 After holding that the defense of estoppel, not having been presented before the Board of Tax Appeals, should have been passed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Justice McReynolds said, “Furthermore, the facts disclosed give it no support.” 297 U.S. at page 109 , 56 S.Ct. at page 377, 80 L.Ed. 511 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ralph J. Baker
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 1936.
297 U.S. 691
Mr. Ralph J. Baker, pro se.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The clerk of this Court having reported the failure of Ralph J. Baker, a member of the Bar of this Court to deposit a check of the clerk of this Court for $15.45 issued to him on November 10, 1934, as counsel for petitioner in the case of Central Iron & Steel Co. v. United States, No. 80, October Term, 1934; and it appearing to the Court that Ralph J. Baker had failed to answer or respond to four letters sent him by the Clerk of this Court under dates of February 1, 1935, February 28, 1935, April 6, 1935, and November 2, 1935, with respect to the said check; and a rule having issued December 9, 1935, directing him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of the law in this Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court; and[*692] Ralph J. Baker, having made return to the rule, apologizing for his neglect, and the check issued to him having been deposited.

Mr. Ralph J. Baker, pro se.

It is ordered that the respondent, Ralph J. Baker, be, and he is hereby, reprimanded for unjustified failure in a duty owed by him as'a member of the Bar of this Court to respond to communications addressed to him by the Clerk of this Court pertaining to the business of the Court;

And it is further ordered that the rule to show\ cause aforesaid be, and it is hereby, discharged.