Legal Opinion

United States v. Nez Perce County

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 4, 1938No. Nos. 8560, 8561PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

The United States has petitioned for a rehearing of these cases, contending that the court was in error in denying the recovery of interest. Petitioner cites authorities such as Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75, 21 L.Ed. 63, holding that, where suit has been brought against a collector to recover the amount of a tax illegally exacted, interest should be allowed from the date of the exaction, and attention is called to, the fact that certain of the county officials were joined as parties defendant in the-present suits. But in the cases before us the counties, as such,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Erskine v. Van ArsdaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. United States v. SanbornSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Seton v. HoytOregon Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Redfield v. BartelsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  5. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers v. ParrishSupreme Court of the United States · 1913

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hammack v. Monroe Street Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Ford v. City of CaldwellIdaho Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Mullaney, Commissioner of Taxation Territory of Alaska v. HessCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
  4. Glacier County, Mont. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
  5. Fidalgo Island Packing Co. v. PhillipsDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1957

2 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