Hillig v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Ps' case was dismissed pursuant to Rules 104(c)(3) and 123(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to prosecute. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated our order of dismissal and remanded this case for reinstatement of the petitions and consideration of sanctions against Ps' attorneys.
Read the full summary
Ps' case was dismissed pursuant to Rules 104(c)(3) and 123(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to prosecute. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated our order of dismissal and remanded this case for reinstatement of the petitions and consideration of sanctions against Ps' attorneys. Held, monetary sanctions against counsel under Rule 104(c)(4) are appropriate in light of Ps' failure to comply with a discovery order pertaining to Rule 72. Held, further, although two attorneys served as co-counsel of record for Ps, such sanctions…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WELLS, Judge:
This opinion arises out of our order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon either or both of the attorneys, Norman V. Handler and Robert D. Courtland, who represented petitioners in the proceedings in this Court leading to our Memorandum Opinion in Hillig v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-476, vacated and remanded 916 F.2d 171 (4th Cir. 1990). In those prior proceedings, we imposed the sanction of dismissal for petitioners’ failure to comply with an order compelling discovery (Rule 104(c)(3)),3 and for their failure properly to prosecute (Rule 123(b)). We…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Herman T. DOVE, Appellant, v. CODESCO, Formerly Known as Washington Dental Supply Company, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1978
- In the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Etc., Defendants- in the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, United States of America v. United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell and the Vessel "Pearl Venture", United States of America, Counter/claimant-Appellant v. The M/v Pearl Venture, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem and Pearl Carriers, Inc., Defendants/counterclaim Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., a Corp., Plaintiffs v. Pearl Carriers, Inc., and the Vessel Pearl Venture, United States of America v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Rechtzigel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hillig v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Van Duyn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Wallis v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991