Robert C. Lane v. United States of Am., Robert C. Lane & Dorothy S. Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert C. Lane v. United States of Am., Robert C. Lane & Dorothy S. Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Howe (idd, 2023-10-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Howe
D. Idaho · 2023 · confidence medium
Howe’s contention that a vast conspiracy exists to unlawfully tax him and deprive him of his property are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity.22 See Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir. 1964) (holding that if no countervailing evidence is introduced, “the trial court [is]…justified, in fact required, to enter summary judgment for the Government the amount of the taxes proved to be due.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Neal
W.D. Ark. · 2008 · confidence medium
Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir.1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dixon
M.D. Ala. · 1987 · confidence medium
If no countervailing proof is introduced, “the trial court [is] ... justified, in fact required, to enter a summary judgment for the amount of the taxes proved to be due.” Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir.1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Powell
S.D. Ga. · 1980 · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit has recognized that when no counter proof is made “[t]he trial court [is] . . . justified, in fact required, to enter a summary judgment for the Government for the amount of the taxes proved to be due.” Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir. 1964); see United States v. Pierce, 609 F.2d 407, 408 (9th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Klimek
E.D. Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir.1964) (holding that if no countervailing evidence is introduced, “the trial court [is] ... justified, in fact required, to enter summary judgment for the Government the amount of the taxes proved to be due.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Saladoff
E.D. Pa. · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See 328 F.2d 602 (5th Cir., Feb. 25, 1964), for subsequent proceedings in the Lane case. .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert C. LANE, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America Et Al., Appellees; Robert C. LANE and Dorothy S. Lane, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20545.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 21, 1964.
328 F.2d 602
Curtiss B. Hamilton, North Miami, Fla., Robert C. Lane, Miami, Fla., for appellants., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edith House, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Joseph Kovner, Earl J. Silbert, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., I. Henry Kutz, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Lavinia L. Redd, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.
Tuttle, Phillips, Jones.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal in connection with these taxpayers’ effort to prevent the collection of taxes in excess of the sum agreed to in an accepted offer in compromise. The case was reported on its last appearance here at 303 F.2d 1. We decided then that when taxpayer breached his compromise agreement, under the terms of the agreement the Government was permitted to collect the full amount of the original tax claim, with credit being given for sums paid under the offer in compromise.

On the second trial the United States offered proof of the amount of the unpaid taxes and there was no counter proof. The trial court was therefore justified, in fact required, to enter a summary judgment for the Government for the amount of the taxes proved to be due. All other questions sought to be raised by the taxpayers on the second trial had been foreclosed by our disposition of the case on the first appeal.

The trial court also correctly dismissed the separate injunction suit in light of our earlier decision.

Judgments affirmed.