HERBERT KURSHAN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD G. RILEY, SPECIAL AGENT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appeal is moot because the testimony sought to be enjoined has already been received, and incidental relief to enjoin future use of the information is inappropriate.
Appellants sought to enjoin an IRS Special Agent from taking testimony pursuant to a summons. No stay was granted, and the testimony was received duri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Irs Summons cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellants’ motion to enjoin appellee, a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, from taking the testimony of Charles D. Fox III pursuant to a summons issued in a tax investigation. No stay of the order pending appeal was granted below, and none was sought in this Court. During the pendency of this appeal appellee received the testimony of Fox.
Since the testimony of Fox has already been taken, the question of whether the receipt of such testimony should be prevented is now moot. See United States v. Lyons, 442 F. 2d 1144 (1st Cir. 1971); Baldridge v. United States, 406 F. 2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969). While this Court may grant incidental relief where a party with notice in an injunction proceeding completes the act sought to be enjoined, Industrial Bank v. Tobriner, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 405 F. 2d 1321, 1323 (1968), it would be inappropriate for this Court to grant the relief requested by appellant, and enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from utilizing any information derived from the testimony of Fox. See United States v. Lyons, supra, 442 F. 2d at 1145-1146. Appellants may adequately protect their asserted interests by seeking to suppress such information in any subsequent proceeding. See Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971); United States v. Lyons, supra, 442 F. 2d at 1145.
The appeal is dismissed. Since the dismissal of the appeal is on account of mootness, and the appellants being otherwise able to assert the merits of their contention, on remand the district court ought to vacate its order and dismiss the action without prejudice.
Remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1992)
-
United States & Special Agent Glenn J. Kulas v. KIS, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981)
-
Barney v. United States, 568 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1971)
- Indus. Bank OF Wash. v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
- United States & Paul F. Hynes v. Lyons, 442 F.2d 1144 (1st Cir. 1971)
- Baldridge v. United States & Donald B. Nettles, 406 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)