Legal Opinion

St. Joseph Lead Co. v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 22, 1960PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PALMIERI, District Judge.

Plaintiff has brought this motion for summary judgment; defendant has cross-moved for an order dismissing the amended complaint to the extent that it seeks a refund in excess of a stated amount. The single disputed issue is whether plaintiff’s amended claim for refund for the year 1949, filed after the expiration of the applicable period of lim*638itations on refund claims for that year,1 ;sets forth new grounds unrelated to those previously advanced in the timely filed original claim for refund.2 See United States v. Andrews, 1938, 302 U.S. 517, 58 S.Ct. 315, 82 L.Ed.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. Garbutt Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Pink v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  4. Partridge v. PresleyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
  5. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. PattersonDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1962
  2. St. Joseph Lead Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  3. Consolidated Coppermines Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  4. Purnell v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Consolidated Coppermines Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962

1 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