Legal Opinion

Stine v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided October 23, 2012No. 10-445 TPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BUSH, Judge.

Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment brought under Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The motion has been thoroughly briefed, and oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. The disposi-tive issue before the court is whether plaintiffs health excused her from timely filing a federal gift tax return and payment. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendant’s motion because plaintiff has failed to identify a genuine issue of material fact as to a…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. United States v. BoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gonzales Ex Rel. Gonzales v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  2. All Stacked Up Masonry, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020
  3. Baer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020
  4. Peng v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
  5. Peng v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API