Legal Opinion

O'Brien v. Sturgess

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided February 19, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUNYON, District Judge.

The above-entitled action was instituted in this court to recover the sum of $211,285.-57, together with interest, and claimed to have been erroneously assessed and collect*951ed under the Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1057).

Mr. Roebling died May 29,1921. Tbe return filed by Ms exeeutors for federal estate tax purposes showed $236,870.88 due, and this amount was paid in due course of administration in three installments.

Later, and because the Revenue Act of 1918, which was in force at the time Mr. Roebling died, had been repealed by the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 227),…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Knowlton v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. New York Trust Co. v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Young Men's Christian Assn. of Columbus v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Hertz v. WoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Edwards v. SlocumSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rosenberg v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
  2. Wilmington Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1940
  3. Ewbank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
  4. Alker v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  5. United States v. Certain Land Situate in City of St. Louis. Mo.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1949

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