TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Murphy v. Graves

MURPHY v. GRAVES, Collector of Internal Revenue

Murphy v. Graves, 120 F.2d 243 (6th Cir. 1941)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 6, 1941
Docket
No. 8571
Citations
120 F.2d 24327 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4221941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the record that appellee, Charles H. Graves, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Tenth Collection District of Ohio, having died during the pendency of this action and that James A. Brady, Acting Collector for said District, having succeeded him, it is ordered that this cause be revived and hereafter proceed against James A. Brady, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the Tenth Ohio Collection District.

It further appearing from the record that appellant, James W. Murphy, doing business as LaFrance Toledo- Company, seeks herein to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes against him by the appellee, James A. Brady, Acting Collector, made under the color of his office, and it further appearing that appellant seeks a declaratory judgment declaring his rights and legal liability to pay taxes proposed to be assessed against him by appellee, and it appearing that no fact is in the record showing extraordinary and entirely exceptional circumstances making inapplicable Section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3653, which prohibits suits to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes made by Internal Revenue officers under color of their offices, (Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189 , 3 S.Ct. 157 , 27 L.Ed. 901 ), and it appearing that Judicial Code, Section 274d, 49 Statutes at Large 1027, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 400 , withholds from the jurisdiction of Federal Courts the right to entertain a declaratory judgment action with respect to Federal taxes,

It is hereby ordered that the decree of the District Court be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1944: 11948: 11953: 11956: 11971: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kindred v. Anderson209 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. 1948)
  2. Harrington v. Cobb185 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App. 1944)
  3. Taylor v. Allan, Director of Internal Revenue for District of Colorado204 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1953)
  4. Martin v. Andrews238 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1956)
  5. Biggs v. United States326 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Ky. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Biggs v. United States326 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Ky. 1971)
  2. Martin v. Andrews238 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1956)
  3. Taylor v. Allan, Director of Internal Revenue for District of Colorado204 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1953)
  4. Kindred v. Anderson209 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. 1948)
  5. Harrington v. Cobb185 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App. 1944)

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
Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189 (1883) 133

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