United States v. Millsap
District Court, D. Wyoming
1Opinion of the Court
KERR, Judge.
The United States has moved for judgment in accordance with its prior motion for directed verdict. It now contends that it established a prima facie case by showing that between 1953 and 1955 the defendants (hereinafter referred to as “Millsaps”) executed the four promissory notes in issue and that there was an unpaid balance due on said notes. They conceded that they executed the notes in the aggregate amount of $18,-000.00, and that the unpaid balance as of May 24, 1960, is $4,863.36. Millsaps denied, however, that the unpaid balance is due and owing the government. The case was…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- United States v. FitchCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Lynn R. Brodrick, Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Kansas v. A. L. Derby and Ida E. DerbyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
- United States v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Yeik v. Department of Revenue & TaxationWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
- Hahn v. Alaska Title Guaranty CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
- Murphy v. StevensWyoming Supreme Court · 1982
- Associated East Mortgage Co. v. YoungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
- Tempo Trucking and Transfer Corp. v. DicksonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.