GOLDBAUM ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; BANKS V. UNITED STATES; MCFEE V. UNITED STATES; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; WATTS V. UNITED STATES; BEATY V. UNITED STATES; STRAUCH ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; BURDICK V. UNITED STATES; MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
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 granted certiorari in multiple cases and vacated judgments, remanding them to the Courts of Appeals for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
Multiple petitions for certiorari were filed, and one petition for rehearing was granted, leading to the vacation of prior judgments.…
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 Petition For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
On petition for rehearing.
Per Curiam:
In Nos. 12, 13, 15, 133, 135, 209, 215, and 249 the petitions for certiorari are severally granted. In No. 622, October Term, 1953, the petition for rehearing is granted, the order denying certiorari, 347 U. S. 1012, is vacated, and the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to their respective Courts of Appeals for consideration in the light of Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121; Friedberg v. United States, 348 U. S. 142; Smith v. United States, 348 U. S. 147; and United States v. Calderon, 348 U. S. 160, decided by this Court December 6, 1954.
Irvin Goldstein for petitioners in No. 12. Joseph B. Keenan, Alvin O. West and John W. Graff for petitioner in No. 13. Elden McFarland for petitioner in No. 15. Lee S. Jones and Helen R. Graft for petitioner in No. 133. Peyton Ford, Sumner M. Redstone, H. D. Reed and Frank A. Bruno for petitioner in No. 135. Llewellyn A. Luce and W. M. Nicholson for petitioner in No. 209. John J. Hooker for petitioners in No. 215. Robert M. Taylor and John C. Noonan for petitioner in No. 249. Temple W. Seay for petitioner in No. 622 (October Term, 1953).
Robert L. Stern, then Acting Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General Holland and Ellis N. Slack for the United States in Nos. 12, 13 and 15. With them were Meyer Rothwacks and Joseph M. Howard in No. 12, Murray L. Schwartz in No. 13, and David L. Luce and Mr. Howard in No. 15. Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Holland, Ellis N. Slack, David L. Luce and Joseph M. Howard for the United States in Nos. 133, 135, 209, 215 and 249.
We have not considered the merits of these cases, nor have we determined their relation to our recent opinions, supra, believing that re-examination by the Courts of Appeals is desirable even in those cases remotely involving the principles laid down in the net worth decisions.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Reported below: No. 12, 204 F. 2d 74; No. 13, 204 F. 2d 666; No. 15, 206 F. 2d 872; No. 133, 209 F. 2d 260; No. 135, 212 F. 2d 275; No. 209, 213 F. 2d 712; No. 215, 213 F. 2d 805; No. 249, 214 F. 2d 768; No. 622 (October Term, 1953), 208 F. 2d 854.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
United States v. Shelton, 669 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1982)…ng to file tax returns is probative of a defendant’s state of mind with regard to a particular year. Mitchell v. United States, 208 F. 2d 854, 857 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012, 74 S.Ct. 863, 98 L.Ed. 1135 (1954), vacated on other grounds, 348 U.S. 905, 75 S.Ct. 311, 99 L.Ed. 710 (1955). Darrough also ran a portion of his income, his share of the proceeds of the sale of the cooperative scheme to Indiana investors, through a “corporation” that Darrough admitted was nothing more than a name and a…
-
United States v. O'Connor, 237 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1956)…he respective Courts of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s net worth decisions, as a definite command that the new formulations be applied to all pending net worth cases. Mitchell v. United States, and other cases, 1954, 348 U.S. 905, 75 S.Ct. 311, 99 L.Ed. 710. The Government argues that we should not consider the charge on its merits because defendant did not request specific instructions and did not object to the instructions given. However, defendant did make a general obje…
-
Reynolds v. United States, 225 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1955)…bar, however, includes the making of false records and [*128] the concealment of assets, and if any of these acts are proved to have occurred in the Western District of North Carolina, the case is made out and the trial court had jurisdiction.” See 348 U.S. 905, 75 S.Ct. 311, Id., 4 Cir., 220 F. 2d 681. In the case at bar no returns were filed nor taxes paid. Each count of the indictment specifically charged that the crime was committed in the Northern District of Florida, and, hence, the venue was proper…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Holland et ux. v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1954)
- Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1954)
- United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1954)
- Friedberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1954)
- Mitchell v. United States, 208 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1954)
- Banks v. United States, 204 F.2d 666 (8th Cir. 1953)
- McFEE v. United States, 206 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Goldbaum v. United States, 204 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Beaty v. United States, 213 F.2d 712 (4th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Burdick, 214 F.2d 768 (3d Cir. 1954)