red
Negative treatment
published
Reversed by the Supreme Court in this case (United States v. Est. of Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286 (1970)) ↗
0.5 score
ScopeReversed by United States v. Estate of Donnelly: the Supreme Court's own opinion in this case.
Cite instead
Cite for current doctrine:
United States v. Est. of Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286 (1970)
Still-good law most often cited alongside it:
McLaughlin v. Comm'r, 51 T.C. 233 (Tax Ct. 1968) · Perlmutter v. Comm'r, 45 T.C. 311 (Tax Ct. 1965) · Comm'r v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278 (1960)
Cited for
No citing cases on record.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ESTATE of Thomas S. DONNELLY, Sr., Oscar A. Carlson and Genevieve S. Carlson, Defendants-Appellees
v.
ESTATE of Thomas S. DONNELLY, Sr., Oscar A. Carlson and Genevieve S. Carlson, Defendants-Appellees
18432_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jan 10, 1969.
Published opinion
Chester C. Davenport, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, John J. Gobel, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief; Lawrence Gubow, Detroit, Mich, (resigned) Now U. S. Atty. Robert J. Grace, Joseph F. Deeb, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for appellant., Daniel N. Pevos, Detroit, Mich., Pevos & Pevos, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appellees.
Celebrezze, Combs, McALLISTER.
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
ORDER
The above cause coming on to be heard upon the briefs and record, and the arguments of the parties in open court, and the Court being duly advised,
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Kaess, 295 F.Supp. 557.