Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

360 F.2d 210

Docket No. 15714.

Griffith v. United States

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 10, 1966.

Decided May 23, 1966.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-05-23

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1971

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Griffith v. Commissioner · Kiesling v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1966-05-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Norman E. Schlesinger, Newark, N. J. (Foosaner, Saiber & Schlesinger, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellants.

¶2Thomas Silk, Dept, of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C. (C. Moxley Featherston, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert A. Baime, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an action for the refund of income taxes and interest paid by the plaintiff F. Willard Griffith for the taxable years of 1953 to 1960, inclusive. The action was presented to the court below on a stipulation of facts. The present appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant. The decision of this Court in Kiesling v. United States, 349 F.2d 110 (1965) is dispositive of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The arguments of the petitioners to the contrary are without merit.

¶6The judgment of the court below will be affirmed on the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Wortendyke.

¶7Judge FREEDMAN dissents for the reasons stated in Judge Raum’s dissent*211ing opinion in Florence H. Griffith, 35 T.C. 882, 894 (1961) and on the further ground that this case is not ruled by Kiesling v. United States, 349 F.2d 110 (1965).

/360/f2d/210 · .json · Public domain