GILES E. BULLOCK AND KATHERINE D. BULLOCK, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
DANA LATHAM, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND E. C. COYLE, JR., DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
GILES E. BULLOCK AND KATHERINE D. BULLOCK, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
DANA LATHAM, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND E. C. COYLE, JR., DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
339 F.2d 605
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1964)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue “whether title to-the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company.” Bullock v. Latham, 306 F. 2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and', competently performed by the District. Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his-, findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Delora Huff Page, 350 F.2d 28 (10th Cir. 1965)
-
Gowdy v. United States, 412 F.2d 525 (6th Cir. 1969)
-
Yates v. United States, 365 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Giles E. Bullock and Katherine D. Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1962)