Kanter v. Commissioner (2009)

A detailed account of its history is available in our last opinion, Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2009).

A detailed account of its history is available in our last opinion, Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2009).

A detailed account of its history is available in our last opinion, Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir.2009).

Of course, we will give the Sixth Circuit's decision "the same respectful consideration that we would always accord to sister circuits faced with an identical or similar case." Kanter v. Comm'r, 590 F.3d 410, 420 (7th Cir. 2009).

See United States v. Rice, 673 F.3d 537 , 540–41 (7th Cir. 2012) (“the task on appeal is not to see whether there is any evidence that might undercut the district courtʹs finding; it is to see whether there is any evidence in the record to support the finding”); Kanter v. Commʹr of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversal is inappropriate where district court’s account of evidence is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety”) (internal qu…

See United States v. Rice, 673 F.3d 537, 540-41 (7th Cir.2012) (“the task on appeal is not to see whether there is any evidence that might undercut the district court’s finding; it is to see whether there is any evidence in the record to support the finding”); Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir.2009) (reversal is inappropriate where district court’s account of evidence is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety”) (internal quota…

P. 52(a)(6); Dexia Crédit Local v. Rogan, 629 F.3d 612, 628 (7th Cir.2010); Rain v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 626 F.3d 372, 379 (7th Cir.2010), and as long as the court’s finding represents a plausible view of the evidence, it cannot be clearly erroneous, Kanter v. Comm’r., 590 F.3d 410, 417-18 (7th Cir.2009); Indiana Funeral Dirs.

Xodus v. Wackenhut Corp., 619 F.3d 683, 686 (7th Cir.2010); Kanter v. Comm’r, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir.2009).

Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009).

Legal Standards “When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court ‘shall make a de novo determination’ with respect to any contested matter.” Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)).

Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009).

Kanter v. Comm’r, 590 F.3d 410, 418 (7th Cir. 2009).

“When the plaintiff makes no specific objections to the magistrate’s recommendation, the court will review the recommendation for clear error.” Id. at *4–5 (citing Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739; Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 2009)).

“When the plaintiff makes no specific objections to the magistrate’s recommendation, the court will review the recommendation for clear error.” Id. at *4–5 (citing Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739; Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 2009)).

Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009).

Id. at 739; Kanter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 2009).

Legal Standard A. Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation “When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court ‘shall make a de novo determination’ with respect to any contested matter.” Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)).

R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).

P. 72(b)(3); Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, the definition avoids any argument that plaintiffs have fashioned a “fail-safe” proposed class. 2 respect to any contested matter.” Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)).

Standard of Review “When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court ‘shall make a de novo determination’ with respect to any contested matter.”* Kanter v. C.LR., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)).

But, while no private person may employ this form of estop-pel against the United States, see United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 n. 4, 162 , 104 S.Ct. 568 , 573 n. 4, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 , 386 n. 4 (1984); see also, e.g., Sun Towers, Inc. v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 315 , 323 n, 8 (5th Cir.1984); Kanter v. Comm’r, 590 F.3d 410, 420 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir.1984); U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Hudson, No. 1:06-CV-763, 2009 WL 7172812 , at *4 (…

Standard of Review “When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court ‘shall make a de novo determination’ with respect to any contested matter.” Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir.2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)).

Defendants cite Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 424 (7th Cir.2009), in support of their argument that Cairns should be considered the grantor of the La Fourche and Red Mountain Trusts.

“When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court ‘shall make a de novo determination’ with respect to any contested matter.” Kanter v. C.I.R, 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir.2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C)).

As a practical matter, this means that such findings “can virtually never be clear error,” unless premised on testimony that is “internally inconsistent,” facially implausible, or “contradicted by extrinsic evidence.” Id.; accord Kanter v. Comm’r, 590 F.3d 410, 417-18 (7th Cir.2009).

See also Ranter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 416-17 (7th Cir.2009).

See Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009).