Legal Opinion
Joyce v. United States
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 13, 1964No. Civ. No. 8296PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEALON, District Judge.
The plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The material facts, as stipulated by both parties, are as follows:
Andrew J. Casey and Patrick J. Casey were partners in a business consisting mainly of holding real estate for rent. On 'the death of each partner the trustee of that partner’s residuary estate became a partner. In 1946, both partners *165having died, the partnership business was being conducted by the trustees of the estates of Andrew J. Casey and Patrick J. Casey. During the year 1946 the taxpayer, M. Pauline…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Casey v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
- United States v. W. A. Rushlight, Raymond G. Rushlight, and W. A. Rushlight, of the Estate of Betty Rushlight, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Daniel M. Cory and Margot Cory, His Wife v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Priest Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Michael G. O'Brien v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Mary Pauline McKenney Joyce, Aloysius G. Casey and Gerard A. McDonough and Executors Under the Will of M. Pauline Casey, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- Mary Pauline McKenney Joyce, Aloysius G. Casey and Gerard A. McDonough and Executors Under the Will of M. Pauline Casey, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966