United States v. David White, Individually and Doing Business as Minnesota Society for Educated Citizens (1985)
green
· 78 citation events
across 26 courts.
Showing the 34 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198520052026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
United States v. A. Stover, Jr. (2011)
"When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose." United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985), citing United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1985).
green
United States v. Stover (2011)
“When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985), citing United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir.1985).
green
United States v. Estate Preservation Services, a Trust Estate Preservation Services, Inc. Robert L. Henkell, … (2000)
See, e.g., Buttorff, 761 F.2d at 1066 ; Kaun, 827 F.2d at 1150-52 ; United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 516-517 (8th Cir. 1985).
green
United States v. Estate Preservation Services (2000)
See, e.g., Buttorff, 761 F.2d at 1066 ; Kaun, 827 F.2d at 1150-52 ; United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 516-517 (8th Cir.1985).
Lilly relies primarily on United States v. White in which the court stated that “ ‘[w]hen an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.’ ” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985) (citations omitted).
green
United States v. Schiff (2003)
See White, 769 F.2d at 512 (“The government had presented evidence of at least fifteen federal income tax returns for the 1982 calendar year filed in the St.
“The government had presented evidence of at least fifteen federal income tax returns for the 1982 calendar year filed in the St. Paul district which appeared to be based upon [the plan].”
green
Abdo v. United States Internal Revenue Service (2002)
The false representations contained in Abdo’s programs are “material” because “[t]he taxpayers who have been or are now being audited by the IRS or are involved in litigation because they relied upon [Abdo’s] representations should certainly have been informed about their complete lack of merit.” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985).
green
United States v. Raymond (1999)
United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 514-15 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1059-63 (5th Cir.1985).
green
Buchanan v. Sullivan (2021)
“When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.” United States v. Stover, 650 F.3d 1099, 1106 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. Estate Pres.
“The traditional requirements1 for equitable relief need not be satisfied since [the statute] expressly authorizes the issuance of an injunction.”
green
United States v. Piskulic (2020)
Discussion “When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.” United States v. Stover, 650 F.3d 1099, 1106 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985)).
green
Katch, LLC v. Sweetser (2015)
July 22, 2002) (quoting United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985)).
United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985) (“When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.”); 44.
“When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.”
green
United States v. Musin (2011)
Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief The Government seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from acting as tax return preparers under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407 , 7408, and 7402. 8 Initially, the Court notes that “[w]hen an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th …
green
United States v. Stover (2010)
Keeping in mind the statute’s purpose is to help the Government halt abusive tax activities, see, e.g., United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 516 (8th Cir.1985), the Court believes the Seventh Circuit is correct in requiring a larger view, not a narrow examination of what is happening at the moment.
green
Calloway v. Commissioner (2010)
“Congress designed section 6700 as a ‘penalty provision specifically directed toward promoters of abusive tax shelters and other abusive tax avoidance schemes?” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original). * * * In an order dated September 22, 2009, the district court granted in part and denied in part, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
emphasis in original
green
Pragovich v. Internal Revenue Service (2009)
Among these cases are United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 629 (9th Cir.2004); 10 United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804 , 815, 816 (7th Cir.2000) (“It is permissible for the government to prevent the dissemination of false or misleading commercial speechf,]” and concluding that “the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in various activities related to the sale of the ‘De-Taxing America Program’ and the incitement to viol…
green
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc. (2005)
But when injunctive relief is explicitly authorized by statute, “proper exercise of discretion requires the issuance of an injunction if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purposes behind the statute’s enactment.” Wadena, 480 N.W.2d at 389 (citing United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985)); see also State by Ulland v. Int'l Assoc. of Entrepreneurs of Am., 527 N.W.2d 133, 137 (Minn.App.1995) …
green
United States v. Cohen (2004)
United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Buttorjf, 761 F.2d 1056,1059 (5th Cir.1985) (‘When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose”).
green
Bell v. Rossotti (2002)
While not deciding the nature of Plaintiffs speech here, the Court notes that the First Amendment does not protect “commercial speech which promotes an illegal activity or transaction.” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 516 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir.1987); Nat’l Commodity and Barter Ass’n v. United States, 843 F.Supp. 655 , 665 (D.Col.1993) aff'd, 42 F.3d 1406 (10th *320 Cir.1994).
green
Minnesota v. Sunbelt Communications & Marketing (2002)
Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction “When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose.” United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985); Donovan v. Brown Equip. & Serv.
green
Minnesota Ex Rel. Hatch v. SUNBELT COMM. AND MARKET (2002)
Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction "When an injunction is explicitly authorized by statute, proper discretion usually requires its issuance if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the injunction would fulfill the legislative purpose." United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985); Donovan v. Brown Equip. & Serv.
green
ncba/nce v. United States (1993)
United States v. Savoie, 594 F.Supp. 678, 680-81 (W.D.La.1984), United States v. White, 583 F.Supp. 1118, 1119-20 (D.Minn. 1984), aff'd, 769 F.2d 511, 515-518 (8th Cir. 1985), and United States v. Kaun, 633 F.Supp. 406 (E.D.Wis.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 1144, 1147-49 (7th Cir.1987) are cases enjoining the respective defendants pursuant to I.R.C. § 7408 for promoting false and fraudulent schemes to avoid taxes in violation of I.R.C. § 6700.
United States v. Savoie, 594 F.Supp. 678, 680-81 (W.D.La.1984), United States v. White, 583 F.Supp. 1118, 1119-20 (D.Minn. 1984) , aff'd, 769 F.2d 511, 515-518 (8th Cir. 1985) , and United States v. Kaun, 633 F.Supp. 406 (E.D.Wis.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 1144, 1147-49 (7th Cir.1987) are eases enjoining the respective defendants pursuant to I.R.C. § 7408 for promoting false and fraudulent schemes to avoid taxes in violation of I.R.C. § 6700.
green
United States v. Bailey (1992)
Tools, Inc., 666 F.2d 148, 157 (5th Cir.1982) (upholding injunction pursuant to section 7408)); United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 514-15 (8th Cir.1985) (same); United States v. Venie, 691 F.Supp. 834 (M.D.Pa.1988) (enjoining tax return preparer under section 7407).
green
Wadena Implement Co. v. Deere & Co., Inc. (1992)
United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985).
green
United States v. Production Plated Plastics, Inc. (1991)
See also Lamphier, 714 F.2d at 338 (when an injunction is authorized by statute irreparable injury need not be shown); United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985) (If the prerequisites for a statutory remedy have been demonstrated and an injunction will fulfill the legislative purpose then the injunction should be granted).
green
Hersch v. United States (1988)
Hoffman Estates, supra, 455 U.S. at 496 , 102 S.Ct. at 1192 ; United States v. White, supra, at 516.
green
United States v. Dennis Kaun (1987)
See White, 769 F.2d at 515 .
green
United States v. Benson (2009)
Benson’s false statements regarding the vulnerability of the Sixteenth Amendment and the ability of his customers to refuse to pay taxes without being prosecuted were material because they would have a “ ‘substantial impact’ on the decision to purchase [his] tax package.” United States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678, 688 (6th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985) (material…
green
United States v. William Benson (2009)
Benson’s false statements regarding the vulnerability of the Six- teenth Amendment and the ability of his customers to refuse to pay taxes without being prosecuted were material because they would have a “ ‘substantial impact’ on the decision to purchase [his] tax package.” United States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678, 683 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985) (mate…
material because “taxpayers who have been or are now being audited by the IRS or are involved in litigation because they relied upon appellant’s representa- tions should certainly have been informed about their complete lack of merit”
green
United States v. Leander Benedict Citrowske (1991)
See, e.g., United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 516 (8th Cir.1985); Moss, 604 F.2d at 569 ; Buttorff, 572 F.2d at 619 .
Compare Music Masters and United States v. Philatelic Leasing, 83 Civ. 4432 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (unpublished), 8 aff' d, 794 F.2d 781 (2d Cir.1986), with Buttorff and United States v. White, 583 F.Supp. 1118 (D.Minn.1984), aff'd, 769 F.2d 511 (8th Cir.1985).
See United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir.1985).
See United States v. Stover, 650 F.3d 1099 , 1106–07 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that, where “the government sought equitable relief expressly authorized by [a federal tax statute,] . . . [t]he traditional criteria for permanent injunctive relief need not be discussed”); see also United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511 , 514–15 (8th Cir. 1985).