green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laurest J. Trahan, Cross-Appellees v. Superior Oil Company, Cross-Appellants
This Court affirmed by per curiam, calling attention to the “well considered opinion” of the district court and holding that Savoy’s “suit was necessarily a collateral attack on the order of the Commissioner.” Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Company, 326 F.2d 757, 758 (5th Cir.1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Floyd Williams v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
See Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., W.D.La.1963, 218 F.Supp. 607 , aff'd 5 Cir. 1964, 326 F.2d 757 ; Bonsall v. Humble Oil & Ref.
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
See Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., W.D.La.1963, 218 F.Supp. 607 , aff’d 5 Cir. 1964, 326 F.2d 757 ; Bonsall v. Humble Oil & Ref.
discussed
Cited "see"
Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co.
(2×)
See Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., 218 F. Supp. 607 (WD La.-1963) aff’d 326 F.2d 757 (CA 5-1964). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vinson Minerals, Ltd. v. XTO Energy, Inc.
(2×)
Compare Ridl, 553 N.W.2d at 784 (lessor’s demands not “specifying in what respects” lessee breached lease, as required by notice clause, not appropriate demand entitling lessor to forfeiture), and Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., 218 F.Supp. 607, 610 (W.D.La.1963) (notice required lessor to “point out the particulars in which they were deemed deficient” to allow forfeiture), aff 'd, 326 F.2d 757 (5th Cir.1964), and Mont.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mike MULVIHILL and Jessie Pershing Lott, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20787.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 29, 1964.
326 F.2d 757
Murray L. Williams, Water Valley, Miss., for appellants., H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.
Tuttle, Hutcheson, Gewin.
Published
PER CURIAM.
We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal asserted by the appellants from their sentence and judgment of guilty in this prosecution for violation of the Internal Revenue Statutes relative to possession of non-tax paid whiskey and find them to be without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.