Lawhon v. United States, 390 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Lawhon v. United States, 390 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re: (ca11, 1998-06-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Bank, 649 F.2d at 289 11 (finding appeal of district court's order enforcing IRS summons moot, because bank records had been produced in compliance with summons); Lawhon, 390 F.2d at 663 (finding appeal of district court's order compelling production of books and records moot, because books and records had been produced in compliance with order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Roe, Inc. v. United States
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Bank, 649 F.2d at 289 (finding appeal of district court’s order enforcing IRS summons moot, because bank records had been produced in compliance with summons); Lawhon, 390 F.2d at 663 (finding appeal of district court’s order compelling production of books and records moot, because books and records had been produced in compliance with order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Bank, 649 F.2d at 289 (finding appeal of district court's order enforcing IRS summons moot, because bank records had been produced in compliance with summons); Lawhon, 390 F.2d at 663 (finding appeal of district court's order compelling production of books and records moot, because books and records had been produced in compliance with order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Barrett
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See United States v. Sherlock, 756 F.2d 1145, 1146 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Sweet, 655 F.2d 54, 55 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. First American Bank, 649 F.2d 288, 289 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. First State Bank of Clute, 626 F.2d 1227, 1227 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 3037 , 69 L.Ed.2d 410 (1981); United States v. Carpenter, 425 F.2d 264, 264-65 (5th Cir.1970); Baldridge v. United States, 406 F.2d 526, 527 (5th Cir.1969); Grathwohl v. United States, 401 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1968); Lawhon v. United States, 390 F.2d 663, 663 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Barrett
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See United States v. Sherlock, 756 F.2d 1145, 1146 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Sweet, 655 F.2d 54, 55 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. First American Bank, 649 F.2d 288, 289 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. First State Bank of Clute, 626 F.2d 1227, 1227 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 3037 , 69 L.Ed.2d 410 (1981); United States v. Carpenter, 425 F.2d 264, 264-65 (5th Cir.1970); Baldridge v. United States, 406 F.2d 526, 527 (5th Cir.1969); Grathwohl v. United States, 401 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1968); Lawhon v. United States, 390 F.2d 663, 663 (5th Cir.1968). 18 Thus,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. First American Bank
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
This court passes no judgment on the question whether, if the mooted records are used in a subsequent prosecution of the taxpayers, if there be one, their introduction would be forbidden as violating the constitutional rights of the defendants. 390 F.2d at 663.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. First American Bank
1st Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
This court passes no judgment on the question whether, if the mooted records are used in a subsequent prosecution of the taxpayers, if there be one, their introduction would be forbidden as violating the constitutional rights of the defendants. 6 390 F.2d at 663.
discussed Cited "see" Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury v. Walter Dobbs
D.C. Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baldridge, 406 F.2d at 527 (determination regarding future admissibility of subpoenaed materials would be in the nature of an advisory opinion) (citing Lawhon v. United States, 390 F.2d 663 (5th Cir.1968)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raleigh H. Lawhon, as President of R. H. Lawhon Groves, Inc.
v.
United States of America and Frank W. Bown, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service
24763_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 13, 1968.
390 F.2d 663
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

390 F.2d 663

Raleigh H. LAWHON, as President of R. H. Lawhon Groves, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America and Frank W. Bown, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.

No. 24763.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 21, 1968.

Motion for Reconsideration Denied June 13, 1968.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; C. Clyde Atkins, Judge.

Norman H. Lipoff, Thomas D. Aitken, Michel G. Emmanuel, H. Diane Breithaupt, Carlton, Fields, Ward Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, Fla., for appellants.

William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, John M. Brant, John P. Burke, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges, and HOOPER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

It appearing without dispute that the books and records of the Lawhon corporations, which were the subject of the order to produce entered by the trial court in this case, have long since been produced and have subsequently been returned to the corporations, there is nothing on this appeal for this court to decide.

2

The appeal is dismissed for mootness.

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

3

The motion for reconsideration is denied. This motion, in effect, seeks to have this court give an advisory opinion as to the admissibility in evidence of the records or their product in the event of a subsequent criminal trial. Such event may not occur. This court passes no judgment on the question whether, if the mooted records are used in a subsequent prosecution of the taxpayers, if there be one, their introduction would be forbidden as violating the constitutional rights of the defendants.