Legal Opinion
Con-Rod Exchange, Inc. v. Henricksen
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided August 17, 1939No. 8570PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $254.80 paid upon a further assessment, under Section 606(c) of the Revenue Act of 1932 (Chapter 209, 47 Stats. 262, 26 U.S.C.A. following section 1481), for the period from October 1, 1935, to August 31, 1936, made on the sale of automobile connecting rods, which the plaintiff rebabbitted and sold. A claim for refund, duly made by the plaintiff, was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on November 10, 1937.
The rebabbitting consisted in applying a metal alloy to the inside and edges of the bearing formed by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kidd v. PearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Anniston Manufacturing Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- White Packing Co. v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
- Armature Exchange, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Henricksen v. SewardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
- Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- Vogel v. KnoxDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1957
- Hirasuna v. McKenneyDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1955
- Zook v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.