Legal Opinion

Rosoff Tunnel Corporation v. Higgins

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 7, 1938PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONGER, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and to dismiss the third cause of action on the ground that the Court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof.

The plaintiff does not oppose this motion to dismiss the third cause of action; therefore, the only question is as to the sufficiency of the complaint.

Plaintiff’s contention is that Section 105 of the Revenue Act of 1935, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1358a, does not preclude the filing of an amended return under the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1938

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. United States v. HanrahanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1965
  2. Midvale Paper Board Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
  3. Mountain Iron Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1940
  4. Hornell Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1940
  5. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. McGowanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API