Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment
Joseph P. Connors, Sr. v. Incoal, Inc., A/K/A Incoal Coal Co.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 4, 1993No. 92-7023Published
1Concurring in the judgmentSilberman, Circuit Judge
I agree with my colleagues that the case should be remanded to the district court. I write separately, however, to set forth what I think is the proper relationship between the nature of the issue before the district court, our scope of review, and the anomaly created by the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
As the majority correctly observes, the ultimate issue in the ease — whether an enterprise is a “trade or business” — is properly described as a question of fact. The majority also rightly looks to Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23,107 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed.2d 25 (1987),…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Commissioner v. GroetzingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Burton SlotkyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.