Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Suazo v. Bryant Properties 769 LLC (nysd, 2024-03-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suazo v. Bryant Properties 769 LLC
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
With this guidance in mind, “a motion under [Rule 60(b)] to vacate a judgment of dismissal is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clavizzao v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Magnone v. United States, 902 F.2d 192 (2d Cir.1990) (dismissing tax refund claim under § 7422(a) for failure to request a refund from the IRS); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1115-16 (2d Cir.1972) (“Insofar as the complaint seeks a refund for any revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed, the complaint failed to allege, as required by § 7422(a), that a claim has been duly filed with the Internal Revenue Service.... ”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Board of Directors of Hopewell International Insurance
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · confidence medium
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 , 108 S.Ct. 2194 , 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); Altman v. Connolly, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972); see Ryan, 303 F.2d at 434 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. M/T Stolt Sheaf
2d Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1326 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 219 , 107 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670-71 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014 , 98 S.Ct. 730 , 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972) (per cu-riam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Petrochemical Company Of Iran v. The M/T Stolt Sheaf
2d Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1326 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 219 , 107 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670-71 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014 , 98 S.Ct. 730 , 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heidi S. Weissmann, M.D., Cross-Appellee v. Leonard M. Freeman, M.D., Cross-Appellant (2×)
2d Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Grand Light & Supply Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 771 F.2d 672, 680 (2d Cir.1985); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Pechan v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 1988 · confidence medium
Oldland v. Kurtz, 528 F.Supp. 316, 322 (D.Colo.1981); Hansen v. United States, 455 F.Supp. 1367, 1369 (W.D.Mo.1978); see Arch Engineering Co., 783 F.2d at 190-91 (dictum); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1115-6 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Healy v. United States Postal Service
E.D.N.Y · 1987 · confidence medium
Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2nd Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation. Gerald Hogan
Ohio Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182 , 56 S.Ct. 780, 782 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam); Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914, 918 (8th Cir.1980); Clayton v. Pazcoquin, 529 F.Supp. 245, 247-49 (W.D.Pa.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hogan v. Dow Chemical Co.
D.C. · 1987 · confidence medium
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182 , 56 S.Ct. 780, 782 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam); Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914, 918 (8th Cir.1980); Clayton v. Pazcoquin, 529 F.Supp. 245, 247-49 (W.D.Pa.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drayton v. Veterans Administration
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 841 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 , 104 S.Ct. 195 , 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 , 100 S.Ct. 352, 356-57 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979); Sherwood, supra, 312 U.S. at 586 , 61 S.Ct. at 769 ; Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d Cir.1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metadure Corp. v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 1983 · confidence medium
Szyka v. United States Secretary of Defense, 525 F.2d 62, 65 (2d Cir.1975); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCloskey v. U. S. Postal Service
E.D. Pa. · 1982 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Employees Welfare Comm. v. Daws, 599 F.2d 1375, 1378 (5th Cir. 1979); Three-M Enters., Inc. v. United States, 548 F.2d 293, 294-95 (10th Cir. 1977); National Ass’n. of Flood Insurers, 520 F.2d at 23-24 ; Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1115-16 (2d Cir. 1972) (complaint must allege exhaustion and finality); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1048-49 (3d Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. United States
E.D. Tenn. · 1980 · confidence medium
Altman v. Connally, C.A. 2d (1972), 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 [2]; see Rule 8(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ostrer v. Aronwald
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972); Heaton v. United States, 383 F.Supp. 589, 590 (S.D.N.Y.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Controls Corp. v. Robert L. Vesco, and Vesco & Co., Inc.
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
While any motion under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, see Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Sampson v. Radio Corp. of America, 434 F.2d 315, 317 (2d Cir. 1970); note 1 supra (use of “may” in Rule 60(b)), this discretion is especially broad under subdivision (6), because relief under it is to be granted when “appropriate to accomplish justice,” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 615 , 69 S.Ct. 384 , 93 L.Ed. 266 (plurality opinion of Black, J.), modified on other *671 grounds, 336 U.S. 942 , 93 L.Ed. 1099 (1949); s…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ruperto Roberto T/a Caborrojeno Caterers v. United States
2d Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Automobile Club of Mich. v. C.I.R., 353 U.S. 180, 183 , 77 S.Ct. 707 , 1 L.Ed.2d 746 (1957); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972); H.
discussed Cited "see" Anwar v. United States Postal Service
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (finding pro se complaint against United States deficient for failing to allege presentation of claim to, and final disposition of claim by, appropriate federal agency, as required by FTCA).
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Muccino
D. Conn. · 2002 · signal: accord · confidence high
“A motion under Rule 60(b) ... is addressed to the sound discretion of the court that entered the judgment, and a *401 determination of such a motion will not be disturbed upon appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of the judicial power.” Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313 (2d Cir.1961); accord Altman v. Connolly, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972).
cited Cited "see" Nassau-Suffolk Ice Cream, Inc. v. Integrated Resources, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Arthur House, and John S. Hogg v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
2d Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited "see" John C. Szyka v. United States Secretary of Defense
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Altman v. Connelly, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1972); Childers v. United States, 442 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857 , 92 S.Ct. 104 , 30 L.Ed.2d 99 (1971); Portis v. United States, 483 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see" Lapiczak v. Zaist
D. Vt. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir., 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rambarrat Ex Rel. Rambarrat v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
Litig., 818 F.2d 210, 214 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted); see also Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 , 1115 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam) (tort claim against United States was deficient because complaint “failed to allege the presentation of the claim to the appropriate federal agency and a final disposition of the claim by that agency, as required by 28 U.S.C., § 2675”); Pender v. United States, 63 F.Supp.2d 473, 474 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (dismissing complaint for failure to allege administrative exhaustion).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir.1972) (applying abuse of discretion standard to appeal from decision on motion to vacate or amend judgment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 55 Motor Avenue Co. v. Liberty Industrial Finishing Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Healy v. United States Postal Service, 677 F.Supp. 1284 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (tort claim dismissed without prejudice where plaintiff failed to allege presentation of claim to agency); see also Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir.1972) (complaint found deficient for failure to allege presentment to federal agency).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nelson v. Regan
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir.1972), See also United States v. Freedman, 444 F.2d 1387, 1388 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 992 , 92 S.Ct. 538 , 30 L.Ed.2d 544 (1971).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nelson v. Regan
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir.1972).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Griffin v. Lee
E.D. Va. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Max Altman
v.
John B. Connally, Secretary of the Treasury, and Johnnie M. Walters, Successor To, Randolph W. Thrower, Regional Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, North Atlantic Region
573.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 9, 1972.
456 F.2d 1114
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

456 F.2d 1114

72-1 USTC P 9290

Max ALTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John B. CONNALLY, Secretary of the Treasury, and Johnnie M.
Walters, Successor to, Randolph W. Thrower,
Regional Commissioner, Internal Revenue
Service, North Atlantic
Region, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 573, Docket 71-2085.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued March 6, 1972.
Decided March 9, 1972.

Max Altman, pro se.

James H. Bozarth, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Robert A. Morse, U. S. Atty., Cyril Hyman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Elmer J. Kelsey and Meyer Rothwacks, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, TIMBERS, Circuit Judge, and JAMESON, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM:

[*~1114]1

Plaintiff initiated this action, pro se, by filing a one page complaint on April 12, 1971. The government moved for dismissal or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. On July 7, 1971, Judge Judd dismissed the complaint for failure to set forth "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . ." F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (1). On August 28 the plaintiff then moved, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b), that the order be vacated. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff appealed. No timely appeal was taken from the July 7 order.

2

A reading of the complaint does not reveal the exact grounds for relief, but a liberal interpretation suggests that the appellant sought (1) refunds on income taxes for the years 1967, 1968 and 1970, and (2) recovery from the government for losses sustained when the mortgage on his farm was foreclosed in 1963. Insofar as the complaint seeks a refund for any revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed, the complaint failed to allege, as required by I.R.C. Sec. 7422(a), that a claim has been duly filed with the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.6402-3 (1971). Insofar as the complaint seeks recovery from the United States in tort, it was also deficient in that, apart from other considerations, it failed to allege the presentation of the claim to the appropriate federal agency and a final disposition of the claim by that agency, as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2675.

3

The appellant makes much of the fact that, as to the tax years 1965, 1966 and 1969, he apparently received a refund of his withheld wages, and a determination that no tax was due. Apart from the fact that acceptance of the taxpayer's return for one year does not create an estoppel against the Commissioner for subsequent years,[1] the appellant has not set forth the basis on which he received these refunds.

4

Even if we assume that plaintiff's motion properly invoked F.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a motion under that rule to vacate a judgment of dismissal is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of such discretion, the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal. See Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313 (2 Cir. 1961). Where, as here, the original complaint fell so far short of the minimal requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 8(a), and subsequent submissions by the appellant did not cure the defects, the lower court clearly did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate its order of dismissal.

5

Since the appellant has not made clear to the court the exact basis for his refund claim, it is not possible to ascertain whether he is barred by I.R.C. Sec. 6511 from asserting his claims before the Internal Revenue Service. If not, he is free to assert his claims there and, if he fails to obtain satisfaction, to sue for a refund.

[*~1115]6

Affirmed.

*

Of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation

1

10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation Sec. 60.17 at 78 (1970)