Legal Opinion
United States v. Joseph Daney and Bertha Daney
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided December 27, 1966No. 8687_1PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HILL, Circuit Judge.
Appellees, in the court below, sued to recover $18,114.89 as a refund of income tax they alleged the government had illegally and erroneously collected from them. The District Court gave judgment to appellees and the government takes this appeal.
Up to and including the year 1958, Joseph Daney 1 was a non-competent, restricted full-blood Choctaw Indian. In 1903 he had been allotted 120 acres of land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations Indian Territory. In 1929, this land was designated by him and the United States Department of the Interior as tax exempt in accordance with…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Palmer v. BenderSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Anderson v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Squire v. CapoemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Thomas v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Manchester Band of Pomo Indians, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1973
- Charles J. Oropallo v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Lawrence R. Fry and Nellie R. Fry, Husband and Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Critzer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
- Horton Capoeman v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.