RUDOLF WOLFF & CO., LTD.

v.

NEIMAN, DBA LONDON GROUP (1974)

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• United States v. Wellington, 754 F.2d 1457 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …may not be amended. By making such a motion, the defendant would, however, waive his rights in this respect. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d) advisory committee note (citation omitted); see United States v. Milestone, 626 F. 2d 264, 269 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 319, 66 L.Ed.2d 148 (1980). The defendants’ contention that the Government’s failure to prove the deleted allegations constituted an amendment is properly before us. . The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewable de novo. United States…
• SEA Lift, Inc. v. Refinadora Costarricense de Petroleo, S.A., 792 F.2d 989 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …ence except where that account is contradicted by findings of the district court. [*992] See Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F. 2d 483, 491 (5th Cir.1974); accord Neiman v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 619 F. 2d 1189, 1190 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 319, 66 L.Ed.2d 148 (1980). . Alien corporations enjoy this protection of the due process clause. See Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., 772 F. 2d 1358, 1362 (7th Cir. 1985) (noting that this proposition “is too solidly ent…
• John D. and Sally A. Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …is a party in this case only because joint returns were filed for the years in question. Therefore, our references to the “taxpayer” or “Byram” are to John D. Byram. . In Suburban Realty Co. v. United States, 615 F. 2d 171 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 318, 66 L.Ed.2d 147 (1980), we recognized that the Code definition of “capital asset” gives rise to at least three inquiries: (1) was taxpayer engaged in a trade or business, and, if so, what business? (2) was taxpayer holding the prope…