Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Willis
Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 450-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2129 , 23 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State, Department of Revenue v. Oliver
(2×)
Such a claim was rejected in United States v. Silkman, 543 F.2d 1218, 1220 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919 , 97 S.Ct. 2185 , 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977). [21] See, e.g., United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 , 95 S.Ct. 915 , 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975); Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 451-52 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2129 , 23 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969). [22] Cf. United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 256 (10th Cir.) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in cancelled checks and deposit slips), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917 , 100 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed.2d 172 (1979); United S…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Conforte v. Commissioner
Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 450-451 (8th Cir. 1969).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
North American Mortgage Investors v. Pomponio
Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 450-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 (1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cupp v. Commissioner
The court also quoted a statement from the decision in Heligman v. United States, 407 F. 2d 448, 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1969), cert, denied 395 U.S. 977 (1969), to the effect that a taxpayer is not the final arbiter of the fifth amendment privilege but that such privilege could be asserted only with respect to a particular question and that it is up to the court then to determine whether the privilege is applicable, and— The public need for requiring voluntary disclosures of income transcends any personal right to thwart national objectives by allowing an undisclosed self-determination of possib…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jerome Daly
In an analogous situation involving this same defendant’s “blanket Fifth Amendment objection to an inquiry and interrogation by the Internal Revenue Service” this court held “that the taxpayer, ‘cannot assert the privilege to every question asked by the examiner, most of which are innocuous on their face.’ ” Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 450 (8th Cir. 1969), citing Daly v. United States, 393 F.2d 873 (8th Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kahn
As stated in Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 451-452 (8th Cir.1969): It belabors the obvious to point out that the purpose of the tax laws is to raise public funds, that adequate operation of taxing procedures is vital to the well-being of this country, and that the basic purpose of the tax laws is not to punish extraneous crimes but to assess and collect revenue. .
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Grand Jury Subpoena
Accord Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448, 451-52 (8th Cir.) (the purpose of tax laws is to raise public funds, not to punish crimes) cert, denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2129 , 23 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roy D. Garner v. United States
See Heligman v. United States, 407 F.2d 448 , 450-451 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2129 , 23 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969) ; Grimes v. United States, 379 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 846 , 88 S.Ct. 104 , 19 L.Ed.2d 113 (1967) ; Stillman v. United States, 177 F.2d 607, 618 (9th Cir. 1949) (which the majority overrules) ; Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 574 , 61 S.Ct. 1085 , 85 L.Ed. 1531 (1941). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert R. GEHLER
v.
Paul E. M. IASIGI, Appellant
v.
Paul E. M. IASIGI, Appellant
17384_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 6, 1969.
Paul E. M. Iasigi, pro se., Britain H. Bryant, Christiansted, V. I., for appellee.
Freedman, Van Dusen Aldisert.
Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.Defendant has argued pro se his appeal from a judgment in the amount of $1,143.24 and an attorney’s fee of $225.00 for services rendered to him by the plaintiff as a bookkeeper and tax analyst.
The District Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court in a comprehensive opinion which makes it clear that the case involved questions of fact which the Municipal Court resolved in favor of the plaintiff, a conclusion which it could not say was clearly erroneous. 6 V.I. 352.
We agree and therefore will affirm the judgment of the District Court.