green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 ·
…bereft of any contrary science, plaintiffs' bare allegation that the agency's distinction conflicts with the 'best scientific evidence available' fails.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gaynor v. United States
he claim set forth in detail each ground upon which a refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the commissioner of the exact basis thereof.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(2×)
bereft of any contrary science, plaintiffs' bare allegation that the agency's distinction conflicts with the 'best scientific evidence available' fails.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zebranek v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
See Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1253 (11th Cir.2006) (to show diligence, petitioner “must provide details of the specific actions taken toward filing the petition”), modified in non-pertinent part, 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.2006), cert. 13 denied, 549 U.S. 1338 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. Woman to Woman Obstetrics & Gynecology, L.L.C.
See Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, De., 189 N.J. 1, 12 , 912 A.2d 88 (2006) (noting the existence of “a valid arbitration agreement” is a “gateway” question requiring “judicial resolution” (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2032 , 167 L.Ed.2d 763 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. WOMAN TO WOMAN OB.
See Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, De., 189 N.J. 1, 12 , 912 A. 2d 88 (2006) (noting the existence of "a valid arbitration agreement" is a "gateway" question requiring "judicial resolution" (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2032 , 167 L.Ed. 2d 763 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas D. Arthur v. Kim Tobias Thomas
See, e.g., Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 , modified on reh’g, 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2033 , 167 L.Ed.2d 763 (2007); Arthur v. Allen, 574 F.Supp.2d 1252 (S.D.Ala.2008); Ex parte Arthur, 711 So.2d 1097 (Ala.1997); Ex parte Arthur, 711 So.2d 665 (Ala. 1985); Arthur v. State, 71 So.3d 733 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), cert. denied, —- U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 453 , 181 L.Ed.2d 294 (2011); Arthur v. State, 820 So.2d 886 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 , 122 S.Ct. 1909 , 152 L.Ed.2d 819 (2002); Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kettle v. United States
(2×)
In Flora II, the United States Supreme Court reiterated that 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(1) requires “payment of the full tax before suit....” Flora II, 362 U.S. at 150-51, 80 S.Ct. 630 ; see also Computervision Corp. v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2033 , 167 L.Ed.2d 762 (2007); Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d at 1526 (“The full payment requirement of Section 1346(a)(1) and Flora applies equally to tax refund suits brought in the Court of Federal Claims....”) (citations…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of Smith v. United States
(2×)
In Fima II, the United States Supreme Court reiterated that 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(1) requires “payment of the full tax before suit....” Flora II, 362 U.S. at 150-51, 80 S.Ct. 630 ; see also Computervision Corp. v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir.2006), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2033 , 167 L.Ed.2d 762 (2007); Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d at 1526 (“The full payment requirement of Section 1346(a)(1) and Flora applies equally to tax refund suits brought in the Court of Federal Claims ....”) (citations…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schroerlucke v. United States
(2×)
In Flora II, the United States Supreme Court reiterated that 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(1) requires “payment of the full tax before suit____” Flora II, 362 U.S. at 150-51, 80 S.Ct. 630 ; see also Computervision Corp. v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2033 , 167 L.Ed.2d 762 (2007); Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d at 1526 (“The full payment requirement of Section 1346(a)(1) and Flora applies equally to tax refund suits brought in the Court of Federal Claims____”) (citations…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackson v. United States
(2×)
Before filing a claim in federal court, a plaintiff also is required to file a claim with the IRS for the amount of the alleged refund, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), which states: No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the pr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Waltner v. United States
(2×)
Before filing a claim in federal court, a plaintiff also is required to file a claim with the IRS for the amount of the alleged refund, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), which states: No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the pr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. Carter-Reed Co.
Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 120 , 922 A.2d 710 ; see also Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, 189 N.J. 1, 17 , 912 A.2d 88 (2006) (“The class-action vehicle remedies the incentive problem facing litigants who seek only a small recovery.”), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338,127 S.Ct. 2032 , 167 L.Ed.2d 763 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Larson v. United States
(2×)
Before filing a claim in federal court, a plaintiff also is required to file a claim with the IRS for the amount of the alleged refund, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), which states: No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the pr…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 06-759.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 16, 2007.
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (2) · Federal Claims (1)
No opinion found. Click here to view source material.