Bullock v. Latham, 339 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Bullock v. Latham, 339 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clifford Gowdy v. United States (ca6, 1969-06-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Clifford Gowdy v. United States (2×)
6th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mahoney v. United States, 220 F.Supp. 823 (D.C.Tenn.1963), aff’d, 339 F.2d 605 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Page, 350 F.2d 28 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 979 , 86 S.Ct. 552 , 15 L.Ed.2d 470 ; and Prosser, Law of Torts, 1000-1001 (3rd ed. 1964).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ernest E. Frankenberg v. Southern Railway Company
6th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Mahoney v. United States, 220 F.Supp. 823, 826 (E.D.Tenn.1963), aff’d 339 F.2d 605 (6th Cir. 1964); Spain v. Livingston, Tenn.App., 440 S.W.2d 805, 808 (1968); Chandler v. Nolen, 50 Tenn.App. 49 , 359 S.W.2d 591 (1961); Adams v. Brown, 37 Tenn.App. 258 , 262 S.W.2d 79 (1953).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Giles E. Bullock and Katherine D. Bullock
v.
Dana Latham, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and E. C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue
28976.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 23, 1964.
339 F.2d 605
Published

339 F.2d 605

65-1 USTC P 9143

Giles E. BULLOCK and Katherine D. Bullock, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Dana LATHAM, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and E. C.
Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue,
defendants-Appellees.

No. 256, Docket 28976.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 8, 1964.
Decided Dec. 23, 1964.

Milo Thomas, Rochester, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert H. Solomon, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson; Joseph Kovner, Department of Justice; John T. Curtin, U.S. Atty., Stephen S. Joy, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue 'whether title to the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company.' Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and competently performed by the District Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his findings of fact and conclusions of law.