Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DOROTHY T. EISENBERG, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that federal income taxes due and owing to the Defendant, United States of America, for tax years ending December 31 of 2001 and 2002 are dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B) (the “Motion”) and the Defendant’s cross motion for summary ju

459 B.R. 376 (2011) In re Duane Joseph KOLVE and Angela Susan Kolve, Debtors. Duane Joseph Kolve and Angela Susan Kolve, Plaintiffs, v. Internal Revenue Service, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 10-18348-7. Adversary No. 11-63. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin. September 22, 2011. *377 Peter E. Grosskopf, Eau Claire, W

BARNES, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) appeals the order of the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, which vacated MDOR’s assessment of use tax against David Heath, doing business as Heath Aviation, a Mississippi corporation located in Winona, Mississippi. Finding error with the chancery court’s decision against MDOR, we rever

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT FEBRUARY 8, 2024 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DEBTORS’ CASE Joseph G. Rosania, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ Case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3) filed by the United States Trustee (“UST”) for Region 19, (Docket # 18), and the response in opposition (Docket #25) filed by Ava Marie Heath (“Mrs.Heath”) and David Thomas Heat

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 604 U. S. Part 1 Pages 140–167 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT February 21, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

227 B.R. 675 (1998) In re Benny Allen DANIEL, Debtor. Benny Allen DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 96-62209, Adversary No. 96-6191. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division at Gary. March 19, 1998. *676 William M. Jonelis, Munster, IN, for

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2018-CA-00936-COA AMANDA WEBB PRESTWOOD APPELLANT v. GENTRY HEATH PRESTWOOD APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/24/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN C. McLAURIN JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLA

224 B.R. 858 (1997) In the Matter of Melanie Velencia HERRING, Debtor. Melanie Velencia HERRING, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. N96-13894-WHD, Adversary No. 97-1003N. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Newnan Division. July 31, 1997. Jacquelyn L. Kneidel, Newnan, Georgia, for plaintiff. <

236 B.R. 156 (1999) In re Earll and Carol HOLDEN, Debtors. Earll and Carol Holden, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service), Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 96-10549. Adversary No.97-1020. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont. July 21, 1999. *157 *158 R.H. Coutan

538 F.3d 608 (2008) Patrick L. BAUDE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David L. HEATH, Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, Defendant-Appellant, and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Indiana, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 07-3323, 07-3338. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 22, 2008. Decided August 7, 2

*1349 EDWARDS, Circuit Judge. Appellant appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing his suit for refund of taxes paid and entering judgment for the United States

371 B.R. 806 (2007) In re Wanza HEATH, Debtor. No. 06-51407-WS. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. July 6, 2007. *807 Andreas M. Getschmann, Livonia, MI, for Debtor. OPINION DENYING UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS WALTER SHAPERO, Bankruptcy Judge. I.

525 F.3d 451 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth HEATH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-1215. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: April 23, 2008. Decided and Filed: May 19, 2008. *452 ARGUED: Sidney Kraizman, Kraizman & Kraizman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0186p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintif

2004 MT 126 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUGLAS HEATH, Defendant and Appellant. No. 01-629. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs: August 22, 2003 Decided: May 14, 2004 For Appellant: Gary E. Wilcox, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana. For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; John Paulson, Assistant

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 24, 2015 Decided June 23, 2015 No. 14-7094 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. TODD HEATH, ET AL., AND TODD HEATH, APPELLANT v. AT&T, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Co

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA VIRGIL A. ADAMS, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-17227

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT. MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Todd Heath appeals the dismissal of his False Claims Act qui tam suit against AT & T, Inc. and nineteen of its subsidiaries across the United States. The first question presented is whether an earlier and still-pending qui tam lawsuit filed against a single AT & T subsidiary bars this suit under t