BANKERS FARM MORTGAGE CO.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1971)
  …tomatic exemption of property that happens to be exempt from state levy under state lawi United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, 56-57 (1958); Shambaugh v. Scofield, 132 F. 2d 345 (CA5 1942); United States v. Heffron, 158 F. 2d 657 (CA9), cert. denied, 331 U. S. 831 (1947); Treas. Reg. § 301.6334-1 (c). See Birch v. Dodt, 2 Ariz. App. 228, 407 P. 2d 417 (1965). As a consequence, state law which exempts a husband’s interest in community property from his premarital debts does not defeat collection of his federal…
• United States v. Empire Packing Co., 174 F.2d 16 (7th Cir. 1949)
  …tand in his own defense, may be cross-examined regarding a prior conviction for a felony as affecting his credibility. Weiner v. United States, 3 Cir., 20 F. 2d 522; United States v. Modern Reed & Rattan Co., 2 Cir., 159 F. 2d 656, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 831, 67 S.Ct. 1510, 91 L.Ed. 1845; Rinella v. United States, 7 Cir., 60 F. 2d 216. The fact that Chapman’s conviction for income tax evasion was pending on appeal, as brought out in the trial court, did not render the cross-examination improper. Unless…
• United States v. Overman, 424 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …the community is generally immune from liability for a husband’s premarital debt.2 While admitting that a state rule of exemption is ineffective against a United States tax lien (United States v. Heffron (9th Cir.) 158 F. 2d 657, cert. denied (1947) 331 U.S. 831, 67 S.Ct. 1510, 91 L.Ed. 1845), the taxpayer argues that the Washington rule is more than that. He contends that the rule is one of property law, and creates a limitation on the extent and quality of his ownership rights under state law. Even as- s…