Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 F.2d 487

Docket No. 40, Docket 27392.

Kearney v. A'Hearn

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 17, 1962. Decided Oct. 26, 1962.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1962-10-26

2 counsel of record

Relies on Kearney v. A'Hearn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1962-10-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2004

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

6019621970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Michael Kearney, pro se, Fort Lee, N.J., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Morton L. Ginsberg, Asst. U.S. Atty., Southern District of New York (Vincent L. Broderick, U.S. Atty., Southern District of New York, on the brief), (Robert Arum, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Levet, J., granting the motion of defendants-appellees for summary judgment, and denying the motion of plaintiffs-appellants for an injunction pending appeal and for leave to file a second amended complaint 210 F.Supp. 10. Appellants' action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1346(a) sought an injunction against the District Director of Internal Revenue restraining him from collecting an income tax deficiency for the taxable year 1953; a writ of mandamus requiring the District Director to issue a statutory deficiency notice; and a monetary judgment for $475.95 with interest and costs.

¶2

Appellants' 1953 income tax return, filed after a 90-day extension had been granted, showed on its face that taxes totalling $404.91 had been withheld and that a tax of $4,136.97 was due and owing. The Government sent appellants a notice of a mathematical error which decreased the tax due by $200. The District Director did not issue a deficiency notice. On May 16, 1961, appellants received a notice from the Government that unless the 1953 tax liability was paid within ten days levy and seizure of their property could result. Appellants then brought the present action. Their claims were denied in two opinions by Judge Levet as yet unreported. We find no merit in any of appellants' claims and affirm on the two opinions of the trial judge.

¶3

Affirmed.

/309/f2d/487 · .json · Public domain