Legal Opinion
Fox v. Rothensies
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 30, 1940No. 7284PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
The trial of the case in the District Court reflects a confused procedure. The confusion inheres in the diversity of the taxpayer’s remedies and forums. He can sue the Collector personally as at common law (clearly anachronistic and circumlocutory), 1 he can sue the United States in the Court of Claims, 2 or in the District Court sitting (within a financial limitation) as a Court of Claims, 3 and he can avail himself of a petition to a quasi-judicial body, the Board of Tax Appeals. 4
These varying procedures may and do give rise to varying results for both a practicable…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Stickney v. StickneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Darlington's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Earnest's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Buck v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
- Loeffler's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Estate of Honickman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Mellon v. DriscollCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1941
- Van Sciver v. RothensiesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Estate of Balazs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.