Leslie R. Ben, Doing Bus. as Ben Constr. Co. v. United States, 241 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1957). · Go Syfert
Search
Leslie R. Ben, Doing Bus. as Ben Constr. Co. v. United States, 241 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Billy G. Powers, T/a Powers Roofing Company v. The United States (cc, 1970-04-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Billy G. Powers, T/a Powers Roofing Company v. The United States
Ct. Cl. · 1970 · confidence medium
Hoosier Home Improvement Co. v. United States, 350 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1965); Ben v. United States, 241 F.2d 127, 128 (2d Cir. 1957), aff’g per curiam 139 F. Supp. 883 (N.D.N.Y.1956).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Security Roofing & Construction Co. v. United States
D. Mass. · 1958 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Ben v. United States, D.C.N.D.N.Y.. 139 F.Supp. 883, 886 , affirmed 2 Cir., 241 F.2d 127 , with Farm & Home Modernization Corp. v. United States, D.C.N.D.N.Y., 138 F.Supp. 423, 426 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leslie R. Ben, Doing Business as Ben Construction Company
v.
United States
24085.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 7, 1957.
241 F.2d 127
Published

241 F.2d 127

Leslie R. BEN, doing business as Ben Construction Company, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 26.

Docket 24085.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued December 14, 1956.

Decided February 7, 1957.

I. Gerald Pliskin, Syracuse, N. Y., for appellant.

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott and Anthony T. Dealy, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Theodore F. Bowes, U. S. Atty., Northern District of New York, and Bernard Burdick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York rejecting appellant's claim for certain tax refunds. The issue and the facts are well stated in the opinion of the court below. 139 F.Supp. 883. Although the case is a close one, we cannot say the District Court improperly refused to upset the administrator's determination that the applicators were "employees" within the statutory scheme. United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 91 L.Ed. 1757; Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 67 S.Ct. 1547, 91 L.Ed. 1947; Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Com. Shows v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 189 F.2d 865; Westover v. Stockholders Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 237 F.2d 948.

Affirmed