Connolly v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport

W.D. Louisiana

Connolly v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport

90 F. Supp. 264, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3773

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedMay 9, 1950

DocketCiv. A. No. 83

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 F. Supp. 264 (Connolly v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connolly v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport, 90 F. Supp. 264, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3773 (W.D. La. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, Chief Judge.

It has been called to my attention that, in the memorandum opinion interpreting the decree and mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 5 Cir., 176 F.2d 1004; 177 F.2d 514, handed down by me on the 28th day of April, 1950, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 976, for the purpose of entering a proper final judgment in the above case, this court failed to indicate which method of calculating the tax savings as between “B” and [265]*265“C” assets should be used, that is, the one suggested by plaintiff and intervenors, or the other proposed by defendant.

It is my belief that the organ of the court in the last decision of the Court of Appeals meant to allow the New Bank all of the tax savings on the property placed in Class “B”, which it was held became vested in full ownership; and hence the method proposed by defendant seems to me to carry out this purpose, and should be adopted.

To this extent the opinion of the 28th day of April, 1950, is amended on the court’s own motion, without the necessity of a rehearing.

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

DAWKINS, Chief Judge.

It has been called to my attention that, in the memorandum opinion interpreting the decree and mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 5 Cir., 176 F.2d 1004; 177 F.2d 514, handed down by me on the 28th day of April, 1950, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 976, for the purpose of entering a proper final judgment in the above case, this court failed to indicate which method of calculating the tax savings as between “B” and [265]*265“C” assets should be used, that is, the one suggested by plaintiff and intervenors, or the other proposed by defendant.

It is my belief that the organ of the court in the last decision of the Court of Appeals meant to allow the New Bank all of the tax savings on the property placed in Class “B”, which it was held became vested in full ownership; and hence the method proposed by defendant seems to me to carry out this purpose, and should be adopted.

To this extent the opinion of the 28th day of April, 1950, is amended on the court’s own motion, without the necessity of a rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F. Supp. 264, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-commercial-nat-bank-in-shreveport-lawd-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack