CALIFORNIA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Stanley v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 639 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …t should have dismissed the case without prejudice. See Dassinger v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 505 F. 2d 672 (5th Cir. 1974); State of Oregon v. United States, 195 F.Supp. 276 (D.Ore. 1961), aff’d 308 F. 2d 568 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 941, 83 S.Ct. 934, 9 L.Ed.2d 967 (1963); People v. United States, 307 F. 2d 941 (9th Cir. 1962). See generally, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.03, ¶ 56.26. Appellant points also to eases holding that summary judgment is an extreme remedy which is pro…
• United States v. Byrum, 408 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1972)
  …tates, 346 U. S. 335 (1953); it certainly is not a case in [*155] which the Court intended or attempted to narrow the meaning of §2036 (a)(1). See, e. g., Honigman v. Green Giant Co., 208 F. Supp. 754, aff’d, 309 F. 2d 667 (CA8 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 941 (1963); Essex Universal Corp. v. Yates, 305 F. 2d 572 (CA2 1962); Perlman v. Feldmann, 219 F. 2d 173 (CA2 1955). “ [Shareholders in a close corporation are usually vitally interested in maintaining their proportionate control . . . .” 1 F. O’Neal,…
• W. Braun Co., Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 396 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1968)
  …the record to support this contention, and the size of the account alone would appear to place it in a different category from petitioner’s other accounts. . Mel Dar Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 309 F. 2d 525 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 941, 83 S.Ct. 933, 9 L.Ed.2d 967 (1963); Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Chelsea Products, 197 F. 2d 620 (3rd Cir. 1952); Bush Hog Mfg. Co., Inc., 42 T.C. 713 (1964); Polak’s Frutal Works, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 21 T.C. 953 (1959); Johnson Br…