TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ingham v. Turner

Helen Ann Hubbell Ingham, Individually and as Representative of All Others Similarly Situated v. Richard Turner, Attorney General of the State of Iowa, James W. Hubbell, Jr., Robert J. Fleming, and Riley H. Richards, Trustees of the Frederick M. Hubbell Estate, Roy D. Clark, Director, Midwest Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service, and Michael J. Murphy, Iowa District Director of the Internal Revenue Service

Ingham v. Turner, 596 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 5, 1979
Docket
No. 78-1826
Citations
596 F.2d 31543 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 13261979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15645

Opinion

596 F.2d 315 79-1 USTC P 13,291

Helen Ann Hubbell INGHAM, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Richard TURNER, Attorney General of the State of Iowa, James W. Hubbell, Jr., Robert J. Fleming, and Riley H. Richards, Trustees of the Frederick M. Hubbell Estate, Roy D. Clark, Director, Midwest Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service, and Michael J. Murphy, Iowa District Director of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.

No. 78-1826.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 1979. Decided April 5, 1979.

Larned A. Waterman (argued) of Lane & Waterman, and Thomas J. Shields and Linda K. Biehl, Davenport, Iowa, on brief, for appellant.

Paul A. Zoss (argued) of Austin, Myers, Peterson & Gaudineer, and J. R. Austin and James R. Austin, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, on brief, for Trustees.

Robert S. Pomerance (argued) Atty., App. Section, Tax Division, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. and M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roxanne Barton Conlin, U. S. Atty. and Kermit Bruce Anderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, Gilbert E. Andrews and Richard Farber, Washington, D. C., on brief, for appellees.

Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

1

This action involves the validity of a document executed by plaintiff which purports to be an irrevocable disclaimer of a remainder interest subject, however, to its validity under § 2518 of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the United States Code. The district court 1 granted the motion to dismiss interposed by those defendants who are Internal Revenue Service officers. Ingham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59 , D.C. (1978). Plaintiff has appealed that dismissal. Upon reviewing the record in this case, the court is persuaded that this suit is one with respect to federal taxes and as such is not cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 . The judgment of the district court is affirmed on that ground, Id., 62-64 , and accordingly it is not necessary to discuss the alternative grounds for dismissal given below.

* The Honorable Earl R. Larson, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation 1

The Honorable William Stuart, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11992: 12000: 219832026peak 2000 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stanbury Law Firm, P.A. v. Internal Revenue Service221 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2000)
  2. William J. McCarthy v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor723 F.2d 1034 (1st Cir. 1983)
  3. Stanbury Law Firm v. IRSNo. 99-3138 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2000)
  4. McGraw v. United States782 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Mo. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Stanbury Law Firm, P.A. v. Internal Revenue Service221 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2000)
  2. Stanbury Law Firm v. IRSNo. 99-3138 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2000)
  3. McGraw v. United States782 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Mo. 1992)
  4. William J. McCarthy v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor723 F.2d 1034 (1st Cir. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ingham v. Hubbell, 462 F. Supp. 59 (S.D. Iowa 1978) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list