MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO.

v.

KAMER

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Pan-American Petroleum Co., 55 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1932)
  …t and expunge provisions to carry out those supposed intentions. The aet must be held to mean what it clearly expresses. [Cases cited.]” See, also, Duke Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C. C. A. 4) 44 F.(2d) 543, 545; certiorari denied 282 U. S. 903, 51 S. Ct. 217, 75 L. Ed. 795. Secondly, implied ratification is not to be presumed, particularly when, as here, there are involved questions of fraud and of the derogation of certain statutory powers of the Attorney General and his office. To ass…
• DR. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 768 (5th Cir. 1934)
  …s are deprived of tlio right to file a consolidated return in the absence of a granting by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of a permission to do so. Duke Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C. C. A.) 44 F. (2d) 543, certiorari denied 282 U. S. 903, 51 S. Ct. 217, 75 L. Ed. 795. The right of choice or election to file one or the other kind of return is exercised by filing the return. Radiant Glass Co. v. Burnet, 60 App. D. C. 351, 54 F.(2d) 718; Lucas v. St. Louis National Baseball Club (C. C.…
• The Seminole Nation of Okla. v. The United States, 498 F.2d 1368 (Ct. Cl. 1974)
  …ole Nation for allotment equalization should thereafter be paid direct to the individual allottees. Our conclusion in this instance is supported by the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Moore v. Carter Oil Co., 43 F. 2d 322 (10th Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 903, 51 S.Ct. 216, 75 L.Ed. 795 (1931), wherein that court considered the same provisions of the 1898 Agreement and the 1908 Act as are here involved. * * * -phg ¡nference that the allottee should receive all of the royalty on the expiration of the tem…