Harold P. Dahlgren v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Harold P. Dahlgren v. United States

557 F.2d 456, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5553, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12015

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 1977

Docket75-3263

StatusPublished

This text of 557 F.2d 456 (Harold P. Dahlgren v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold P. Dahlgren v. United States, 557 F.2d 456, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5553, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12015 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

It appears that one issue comprehended within the original suit, that is the question whether Dahlgren had “constructively transferred” his interest in the patent long before the purported sale with which this case is now concerned, was decided in favor of the taxpayer by the jury in response to special interrogatories. Petitioner contends that it is appropriate, if this Court remands the case to the trial court to provide that that issue is no longer to be tried and that the new trial shall be limited to the valuation question dealt with in our opinion. We conclude that this is an appropriate request and on remand the issue of possible transfer of the patent in May of 1959 shall be taken as settled in favor of the taxpayer and shall not again be submitted to the jury.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

It appears that one issue comprehended within the original suit, that is the question whether Dahlgren had “constructively transferred” his interest in the patent long before the purported sale with which this case is now concerned, was decided in favor of the taxpayer by the jury in response to special interrogatories. Petitioner contends that it is appropriate, if this Court remands the case to the trial court to provide that that issue is no longer to be tried and that the new trial shall be limited to the valuation question dealt with in our opinion. We conclude that this is an appropriate request and on remand the issue of possible transfer of the patent in May of 1959 shall be taken as settled in favor of the taxpayer and shall not again be submitted to the jury.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 F.2d 456, 40 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5553, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-p-dahlgren-v-united-states-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack