Club Martinique, Inc. v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Club Martinique, Inc. v. United States

409 F.2d 841

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1969

Docket181-68_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 841 (Club Martinique, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Club Martinique, Inc. v. United States, 409 F.2d 841 (10th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case involves so-called federal cabaret taxes assessed against appellant pursuant to section 4231(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The sole question in the case is one of fact. Was the club one in which public performances were furnished for profit to its patrons or guests within the meaning of the above statute? The trial court, after a trial without a jury, made complete and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and answered the question in the affirmative. We have reviewed the record and certainly cannot say that the findings were clearly erroneous. Therefore, we cannot disturb them on this appeal. Rule 52(a), F.R. Civ.P.,; Raulie v. United States, 400 F.2d 487 (10th Cir. 1968); Hill v. Field, 384 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1967).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons and upon the legal authorities set forth in the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, reported in 293 F.Supp. 50.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case involves so-called federal cabaret taxes assessed against appellant pursuant to section 4231(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The sole question in the case is one of fact. Was the club one in which public performances were furnished for profit to its patrons or guests within the meaning of the above statute? The trial court, after a trial without a jury, made complete and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and answered the question in the affirmative. We have reviewed the record and certainly cannot say that the findings were clearly erroneous. Therefore, we cannot disturb them on this appeal. Rule 52(a), F.R. Civ.P.,; Raulie v. United States, 400 F.2d 487 (10th Cir. 1968); Hill v. Field, 384 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1967).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons and upon the legal authorities set forth in the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, reported in 293 F.Supp. 50.

Richard L. Crowther, Willard Eames, Charles Morgan Smith, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of James Hopkins Smith, Iii, and James Hopkins Smith, Iii, on Behalf of Themselves and All Persons Similarly Situated v. Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Austral Oil Company and Cer Geonuclear Corporation, Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council, on Behalf of All Those Entitled to the Protection of Their Health and Safety and of the Health and Safety of Those Generations Yet Unborn, From the Hazards of Ionizing Radiation Resulting From the Distribution of Radioactive Materials Through the Permanent Biogeochemical Cycles of the Biosphere as a Result of the Defendants' Conduct of Project Rulison, and on Behalf of All Those Entitled to the Full Benefit, Use and Enjoyment of the National Natural Resource Treasures of the State of Colorado Without Degradation Resulting From Contamination With Radioactive Material Released as a Result of the Defendants' Conduct of Project Rulison, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Austral Oil Company, Incorporated and Cer Geonuclear Corporation

415 F.2d 437 (Tenth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/club-martinique-inc-v-united-states-ca10-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack