United States v. Daniel J. Leary and Sadie D. Leary

Second Circuit

United States v. Daniel J. Leary and Sadie D. Leary

330 F.2d 497, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1059, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6125

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1964

Docket28485-28487_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 330 F.2d 497 (United States v. Daniel J. Leary and Sadie D. Leary) 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

United States v. Daniel J. Leary and Sadie D. Leary, 330 F.2d 497, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1059, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6125 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of May 22, 1963 is affirmed in open court upon the opinion below of Judge Blumenfeld in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 228 F.Supp. 467, wherein, after consolidation of three cases, the Government’s motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that the complaints in each of the cases, together with such answers as defendants filed, created no factual issues requiring trial.

The taxable years involved in these cases were the years 1933, 1934, and 1935. The uncontested affidavit of debt discloses that the amounts claimed to be due totaled $420,250.05. One of the three cases was commenced 23 years ago; the other two, 18 years ago. We are satisfied that the delay in the obtaining of judgment in the consolidated case was not entirely the fault of the Government; but we cannot refrain from pointing out that, because of interest accumulations, the judgment now obtained is substantially in excess of double the amount of the taxes claimed to have been due and unpaid, and, in affirming the judgment below, we do not wish to imply that we approve this sort of delay. Nevertheless, as we are satisfied that neither the Government nor the taxpayers have been prejudiced, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of May 22, 1963 is affirmed in open court upon the opinion below of Judge Blumenfeld in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 228 F.Supp. 467, wherein, after consolidation of three cases, the Government’s motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that the complaints in each of the cases, together with such answers as defendants filed, created no factual issues requiring trial.

The taxable years involved in these cases were the years 1933, 1934, and 1935. The uncontested affidavit of debt discloses that the amounts claimed to be due totaled $420,250.05. One of the three cases was commenced 23 years ago; the other two, 18 years ago. We are satisfied that the delay in the obtaining of judgment in the consolidated case was not entirely the fault of the Government; but we cannot refrain from pointing out that, because of interest accumulations, the judgment now obtained is substantially in excess of double the amount of the taxes claimed to have been due and unpaid, and, in affirming the judgment below, we do not wish to imply that we approve this sort of delay. Nevertheless, as we are satisfied that neither the Government nor the taxpayers have been prejudiced, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 F.2d 497, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1059, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniel-j-leary-and-sadie-d-leary-ca2-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack