green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
20.4 score
“a ection 6672 assessment is presumed correct, and it is the individual's burden to show, in a refund action, that he or she was not a responsible person or did not willfully fail to pay over the taxes.”
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Eswaran v. McTighe
speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant 22 granting a preliminary injunction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Douglas v. The Ezralow Co., LLC.
speculative injury does not constitute irreparable 15 injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Reed-Bey v. Guo
speculative injury 8 does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Starks v. FPI Management
speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient 18 to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Roots v. Fox
speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant 7 granting a preliminary injunction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brinskele v. United States
a ection 6672 assessment is presumed correct, and it is the individual's burden to show, in a refund action, that he or she was not a responsible person or did not willfully fail to pay over the taxes.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Hill v. Rios
See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 , 130-31 20 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 21 (1998); Caribbean Marine Servs.
cited
Cited "see"
Jose Angel Santos v. California Department of Corrections, et al.
See FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the threat 17 of injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
(PS) Walker v. Franklin
See generally FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the 17 threat of injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 18 (1998). 19 Finally, as set forth below, since plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim, plaintiff 20 cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits as required for preliminary injunctive relief to 21 issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
(PC) Robinson v. Willsmore
See 26 generally FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the threat of injury “must be 27 imminent, not remote or speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998). 28 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied. 1 | Plaintiffs complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be reviewed by the court in 2 || due course. 3 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for 4 || preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 12) be denied. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Dis…
cited
Cited "see"
(PS) Douglas v. The Ezralow Co., LLC.
See FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) 8 (the threat of injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 9 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
(PC) Wilhelm v. Aung
See FDIC v. Garner, 8 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the threat of injury “must be imminent, not remote or 9 speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Seaver v. New Buffalo Auto Sales (In re Hecker)
See Riley v. United States, 118 F.3d 1220 , 1222 n. 1 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1299 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998). .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads
(2×)
See Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902, 913-14 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 467 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parker v. Stryker Corp.
See Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902, 915 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 467 (1998); Michael v. Shiley, Inc., 46 F.3d 1316, 1327-28 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 815 , 116 S.Ct. 67 , 133 L.Ed.2d 29 (1995), overruled on other grounds as stated in In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 159 F.3d 817, 825 (3rd Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arnold v. Krause, Inc.
See Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 , 961 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998) (citing Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 590-91 (2d Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc.
See Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 970 (2d Cir.1997) (citing Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1995), in turn citing Waldman Publ'g, 43 F.3d at 781-85 ), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1)(A) *1070 (statutory prohibition on false designation of origin cast in terms that track these elements). 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Faulkner v. National Geographic Society
Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1995); accord Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 , 970-71 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998); EFS Marketing, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 487, 492 (2d Cir.1996); Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 711 (2d Cir.1991). 179 .
cited
Cited "see"
Garcia v. County of Bucks, PA.
See Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508 , 510 *268 (11th Cir.1997) cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1299 , 140 L.Ed.2d 465 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pavlov v. Bank of New York Co., Inc.
E.g., Hoelzer v. City of Stamford, 722 F.Supp. 1106, 1112 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff’d, 933 F.2d 1131 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 815 , 121 L.Ed.2d 687 (1992); see Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 , 967 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Williams
See Riley v. United States, 118 F.3d 1220 , 1222 n. 1 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1299 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998); Vierkant, 240 B.R. at 323 .
cited
Cited "see"
Worldwide Sport Nutritional Supplements, Inc. v. Five Star Brands, LLC
See Softel Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 . 967-68 (2d Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC
See Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 612 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (sealing portions of record, noting that “[p]otential damage from release of trade secrets is a legitimate basis for sealing documents and restricting public access during trial”) (citations omitted); In re New York Times Co. to Unseal Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials, 577 F.3d 401 , 410 n.4 (2d Cir. 2009) (“When litigation requires disclosure of trade secrets, the court may disclose certain materials only to the attorneys involved.”); see also Banco Santander (Brasil), S.A. v. American Air…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gibbons v. Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM)
See, e.g., Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508 , 516 n. 3 (11th Cir.1997) (“Counsel may waive the right to have an issue decided by failing to identify the issue to the court at the pretrial conference, regardless of whether the issue is a legal or factual one.”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1299 , 140 L.Ed.2d 465 (1998); see also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 16.78[3] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack
Trade Secrets Under New York law, a trade secret is defined as “any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives [the owner] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Haber, 188 F.3d at 44 (quoting Restatement of Torts, § 757 cmt. b (1939)); see also Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 968 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 , 118 S.Ct. 1300 , 140 L.Ed.2d 466 (1998); Ashland Management Inc. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 9…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Birmingham
v.
Morro
v.
Morro
No. 97-878.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 23, 1998.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (5) · Federal Claims (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.