United States v. Herman L. Taylor, 325 F.2d 1020 (4th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Herman L. Taylor, 325 F.2d 1020 (4th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: India Steamship Co. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd. (ca2, 2010-09-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." India Steamship Co. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd.
2d Cir. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 321 F.2d 14 , 18-19 (2d Cir.1963) (observing that statutorily authorized tax lien can be enforced only against property within the jurisdiction of *162 the court), aff'd per curiam on reh’g in banc, 325 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir.1964), rev’d on other grounds, 379 U.S. 378 , 85 S.Ct. 528 , 13 L.Ed.2d 365 (1965); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 8 & cmt.a (“[Attachment jurisdiction] is based on the fact that the property is within the territorial limits of the state in which the court is located.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Lebanon Woolen Mills Corporation
D.N.H. · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. First National City Bank, 2 Cir., 321 F.2d 14 , aff’d. on rehearing, 325 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1964) (appeal pending).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Herman L. TAYLOR, Appellant
9160.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 10, 1964.
325 F.2d 1020
Andrew C. Muse, Danville, Va. (R. D. Ealey, Richmond, Va., R. O. Murphy, Earl Whitted, Jr., Goldsboro, N. C., I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md., and George G. Brown on brief), for appellant., William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty. (Roy G. Hall, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Boreman, Bryan, Hutcheson, Per Curiam.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Upon examination and consideration of the record before us, the findings and conclusions of the District Court, the order denying the motion of the defendant that he be permitted to pay “convenient” sums out of future earnings in discharge of his fines, and the order revoking defendant’s probation, we find no error.

Affirmed.