United States v. Spitzer
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
WEINFELD, District Judge.
The motion for leave to serve an amended complaint is granted. While no doubt the case thus far has. proceeded at a leaden-footed pace, the defendants are not without some responsibility for the delay; in any event, there is no sound reason for denying to the government the opportunity to assert its claims in an effort to obtain payment of the uncollected judgment. 1
The narrow interpretation of 31 U.S.C., section 192, urged by the defendants, to wit, that it imposes liability “only on the person who pays,” would in effect defeat the purpose of the statute.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley RRSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Darcy v. Brooklyn & New York Ferry Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
- King v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. 58th Street Plaza Theatre, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- United States v. Golden Acres, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1988
- United States v. Gottheiner (In Re Gottheiner)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 1980
- United States v. BlumenfeldDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991