TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nesbitt v. United States

Marie D. Nesbitt v. United States of America Safeco Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation the City and County of San Francisco L.T. Goldmeyer Dba Union Credit Company and the Franchise Tax Board, an Agency of the State of California

Nesbitt v. United States, 622 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 26, 1980
Docket
No. 78-2111
Citations
622 F.2d 43346 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 53231980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16271

Opinion

622 F.2d 433

Marie D. NESBITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Safeco Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation; the City and County of San Francisco; L.T. Goldmeyer dba Union Credit Company; and the Franchise Tax Board, an agency of the State of California, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-2111.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 26, 1980.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Charles B. Renfrew, Judge.

1

Franklin J. Flocks, Palo Alto, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

2

Joan I. Oppenheimer, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

3

Before SNEED and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and PFAELZER * , District Judge.

4

Appellant appeals from a summary judgment of the district court granting priority to the United States' tax lien claims over the judgment lien claim of the appellant. Both appellant and appellee agree that but for the provisions of Revised Statutes Sec. 3466, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 191 , appellant would be entitled to priority. The district court held that section 3466 was applicable, with the consequence that the United States was entitled to priority, and that the appellant's lien was not excepted from the operation of section 3466. We affirm.

5

The reasons for our affirmance were stated quite well in the district court's opinion which appears in 445 F.Supp. 824 (N.D.Cal.1978). We adopt Judge Renfrew's opinion to the extent of Parts I, II, and III.A. As to Part III.B, we merely wish to hold that, to the extent an exception to section 3466 might exist for "perfected and specific liens," the lien of the appellant was not sufficiently perfected and specific to come within any such exception.

6

Affirmed.

* Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation

How later courts describe this case

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

1982: 11986: 11993: 11998: 119822026peak 1982 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Durham v. UNITED STATES, BY CIR545 F. Supp. 1093 (D.N.J. 1982)
  2. United States v. Estate of Romani523 U.S. 517 (1998)
  3. Carmody v. Peck515 A.2d 669 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986)
  4. Abrams v. Union Bank9 F.3d 1550 (9th Cir. 1993)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Estate of Romani523 U.S. 517 (1998)
  2. Abrams v. Union Bank9 F.3d 1550 (9th Cir. 1993)
  3. Carmody v. Peck515 A.2d 669 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986)
  4. Durham v. UNITED STATES, BY CIR545 F. Supp. 1093 (D.N.J. 1982)

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
Nesbitt v. United States, 445 F. Supp. 824 (N.D. Cal. 1978) 7

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