TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Russell Manufacturing Co.

United States v. The RUSSELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY

United States v. Russell Mfg. Co., 245 F. Supp. 159 (D. Conn. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, D. Connecticut · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 8, 1964
Docket
No. Civ. No. 10123
Judges
Timbers
Citations
245 F. Supp. 15914 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 50301964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8511

Opinion of the Court — Timbers

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

TIMBERS, Chief Judge.

Defendant and plaintiff having filed, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., cross-motions for summary judgment; and

The Court having heard argument by counsel for the respective parties; having received and considered the above-mentioned motions, the briefs of the respective parties, and the pleadings and other papers on file; and

The Court being of the opinion that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, there being no genuine issue as to any material fact and defendant being entitled to judgment as a matter of law, for the reasons that:

(1) Plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proving that any portion of any tax was “erroneously refunded” by plaintiff within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7405 (b) (see Soltermann v. United States, 272 F.2d 387 [9 Cir. 1959]); and

(2) Substantially the same substantive issues as are involved in this case having been correctly decided against the government by the Court of Claims in Russell Manufacturing Company v. United States, 175 F.Supp. 159 (Ct. Cl. 1959) and Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. United States, 314 F.2d 953 (Ct. Cl. 1963), no reason appears why this Court should not decide the instant case in accordance with said Court of Claims decisions on the principle of. stare decisis; and

(3) Even if the above-cited Court of Claims decisions had not been rendered, this Court would, upon consideration of the merits of the case de novo, decide the substantive issues in favor of defendant; it is

Ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, granted; and it is further

Ordered that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1967: 11972: 12000: 119672026peak 1967 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Harold D. Farley Gail D. Farley202 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000)
  2. Buttrey Stores, Incorporated v. The United States375 F.2d 799 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  3. United States v. Claycraft Company364 F. Supp. 1358 (S.D. Ohio 1972)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Harold D. Farley Gail D. Farley202 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000)
  2. United States v. Claycraft Company364 F. Supp. 1358 (S.D. Ohio 1972)
  3. Buttrey Stores, Incorporated v. The United States375 F.2d 799 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Soltermann v. United States, 272 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1959) 34
Miss. River Fuel Corp. v. The United States, 314 F.2d 953 (Ct. Cl. 1963) 17
Russell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 159 (Ct. Cl. 1959) 10

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