UNITED STATES

v.

DAVIS ET UX.; AND DAVIS ET UX. V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1962)
  …the transfer but upheld his ruling that the fees paid the wife’s attorney were not deductible. 152 Ct. Cl. 805, 287 F. 2d 168. We granted certiorari on a conflict in the Court of Appeals and the Court of Claims on the taxability of such transfers.2 368 U. S. 813. We have decided that the taxpayer did have a taxable gain on the transfer and that the wife’s attorney’s fees w7ere not deductible. In 1954 the taxpayer and his then wife made a voluntary property settlement and separation agreement calling for su…
• Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Prods. Co., 370 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1962)
  …s to liability but [*21] reversed as to the amount of damages. 284 F. 2d 1. We granted certiorari limited to the issue of the immunity of interorganizational dealings among the three cooperatives from the conspiracy provisions of the antitrust laws. 368 U. S. 813. We have concluded that the case was submitted to the jury on the theory claimed by petitioners and that this was erroneous. Thus we reverse the judgment. Sunkist Growers, Inc., has at its base 12,000 growers of citrus fruits in California and Ariz…
• Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 369 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1966)
  …on. In the prior opinion of the Court of Appeals, reported at 284 F. 2d 1 (9th Cir. 1960), the only discussion of the exemption pertained to its extent, not to whether or not it was applicable. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in granting certiorari, 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22.(1961), expressly limited its consideration to a single question, namely, “Where a group of citrus fruit growers form a co-operative organization for the purpose of collectively processing and marketing their fruit, and c…