BARNES & TUCKER CO.

v.

PENNSYLVANIA

Citator

Cited By

• Bruce v. United States, 759 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511 & 7422(a), have been held to present jurisdictional hurdles in addition to 28 U.S.C. [*759] § 1346(a)(1). See Crismon v. United States, 550 F. 2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 807, 98 S.Ct. 38, 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977); United States v. Rochelle, 363 F. 2d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1966). Standing requirements under § 6402(a) of the Code do not contravene 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) because Congress possesses the authority to impose stand…
• Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1985)
  …legal cause of the nuisance, and not simply on the basis of ownership of the offending land. Compare Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 23 Pa. Commw. 496, 509-510, 353 A. 2d 471, 478-79 (1976), aff’d, 472 Pa. 115, 371 A. 2d 461, appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 807, 98 S.Ct. 38, 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977), with National Wood Preservers v. Commonwealth, 489 Pa. 221, 237-240, 414 A. 2d 37, 45-47, appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 803, 101 S.Ct. 47, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980). . PECO’s eleventh-hour attempt to add a claim against H…
• N. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 685 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …imitations or is estopped from asserting it. We reject the waiver argument. The filing of a timely claim is jurisdictional for a refund suit and cannot be waived. Crismon v. United States, 550 F. 2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 807, 98 S.Ct. 38, 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977); Vishnevsky v. United States, 581 F. 2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1978). We also dismiss the estoppel claim. At a minimum, estoppel requires an act by a government agent, upon which the taxpayer relies to its detriment, unde…