Escro Storage & Cartage, Inc. v. Frontier Distribution Line, Inc.

Second Circuit

Escro Storage & Cartage, Inc. v. Frontier Distribution Line, Inc.

456 F.2d 182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1972

DocketNo. 441, Docket 71-1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 182 (Escro Storage & Cartage, Inc. v. Frontier Distribution Line, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escro Storage & Cartage, Inc. v. Frontier Distribution Line, Inc., 456 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Escro Storage and Cartage, Inc. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Curtin, dismissing its complaint against both defendants, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Frontier Distribution Line, Inc. (Frontier). The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s action for damages against the IRS, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) and (h). The court then refused in its discretion to hear plaintiff’s pendent claim against Frontier. Plaintiff argues on appeal that jurisdiction exists under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6335, 7426, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340, 1346(a) (2) and (e). We have considered these claims and on this record find them without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Escro Storage and Cartage, Inc. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Curtin, dismissing its complaint against both defendants, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Frontier Distribution Line, Inc. (Frontier). The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s action for damages against the IRS, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) and (h). The court then refused in its discretion to hear plaintiff’s pendent claim against Frontier. Plaintiff argues on appeal that jurisdiction exists under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6335, 7426, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340, 1346(a) (2) and (e). We have considered these claims and on this record find them without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escro-storage-cartage-inc-v-frontier-distribution-line-inc-ca2-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack