Shpritz v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
Appellants assert that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the District of Columbia, as defendant, at the conclusion of a bench trial. We affirm.
The evidence at trial tended to prove the following circumstances. Prior to September 1971, appellants had been controlling stockholders and directors of Associated Opticians, a District of Columbia corporation which had become tax-indebted to the federal government in an amount in excess of $30,000. In that month, appellants sold their controlling interest in the corporation to another corporation. Subsequently,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Aquilino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Almi, Inc. v. Dick Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Savings Bank of Danbury v. LoeweSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Industrial Bank of Washington v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. WrennDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Ehab Asal v. Estate of MinaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2021