339 F.2d 605 - Bullock v. Latham — 339 F.2d 605

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1994

15 federal appellate ·

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.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Harold P. Burke, J., dismissing taxpayers' complaint in a declaratory judgment action.

Milo Thomas, Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert H. Solomon, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson; Joseph Kovner, Department of Justice; John T. Curtin, U. S. Atty., Stephen S. Joy, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue "whether title to the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company." Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and competently performed by the District Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his findings of fact and conclusions of law.