TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lawrence A. Fortney, Jr. v. United States

Lawrence A. FORTNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

Fortney v. United States, 774 F.2d 445 (11th Cir. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 18, 1985
Docket
No. 85-8098
Judges
Godbold, Hill, Anderson
Citations
774 F.2d 4451985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23783
Summary
Non-Argument Calendar.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The district court had no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s claim because he had not filed a proper claim for refund.

The award of attorney’s fees to the government was appropriate because appellant’s suit was frivolous.

The government is awarded double costs for this appeal because the appeal is obviously frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1912 ; F.R.A.P. 38.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1986: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Donald H. Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue788 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Donald H. Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue788 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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