Cases

325 A.2d 81 (1974) STATE v. Robert S. VINAL. No. 73-134-C. A. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. July 11, 1974. Richard J. Israel, Atty. Gen., Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff. Berberian & Tanenbaum, Aram K. Berberian, Cranston, for defendant. OPINION KELLEHER, Justice. This is a complaint and warrant charging the

316 A.2d 497 (1974) Robert S. VINAL v. Eugene P. PETIT, Jr., Registrar. No. 73-34-M. P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. March 14, 1974. Berberian & Tanenbaum, Aram K. Berberian, Cranston, for petitioner. Richard J. Israel, Atty. Gen., George H. Egan, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. OPINION JOSLIN, Justice. This is a pet

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.

*395MEMORANDUM RICHARD E. ROBINSON, Chief Judge. This is an action for the recovery of estate taxes assessed by the defendant and paid by the plaintiff plus interest from the date of payment. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1340 grant this Court jurisdiction. The case was tried to the Court upon an agreed stipulation of facts together with attached exhi

ROBINSON, Chief Judge. This is an action instituted by Mrs. Lee O. Spear, a resident of the State of Nebraska, to recover income taxes in the amount of $2,174.27 which allegedly were erroneously paid to and collected by Richard P. Vinal, District Director of Internal Revenue. Jurisdiction exists in this Court by reason of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1340. The facts in this case are relatively simple and have been submi

LAY, Circuit Judge. Taxpayer instituted this action against the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Nebraska to recover an alleged overpayment of income taxes, penalties and interest for the years 1948 through 1958, in the total amount of $122,344.91 plus interest.1 The taxpayer, appellant in this court, is an attorney. This litigation arises from his pur

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by Richard P. Vinal, District Director of Internal Revenue for Nebraska, and the United States from final judgment of the district court allowing taxpayer Peterson Mortuary, Inc., its claim for refund of excise taxes paid by it and denying the supplemental complaint in intervention fi

HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The sole question on this appeal is whether Subsidiary Communications Authorization multiplex radio receivers, manufactured by McMartin, were subject to the ten percent manufacturers’ excise tax imposed on radio receiving sets by 26 U.S.C. § 4141 (1964 ed.).

Peters, C. J. The dispositive issue in each of these appeals is whether the trial court erred in refusing to sever the joint trial of the two defendants. One defend*646ant, Daniel Vinal, Jr., was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.1 The other defendant, James Avis, was charged with felony murder in violation of Gen

PIERCE, Circuit Judge: Vinal S. Duncan appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on May 28, 1993 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (T.F. Gilroy Daly, Judge), following a jury trial. On October 1, 1992, Duncan was charged in a multi-count indictment with conspiracy, bank fraud, and making corrupt payments to public officia

MEMORANDUM RICHARD E. ROBINSON, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon the defendants’ motions to dismiss. [Filing #6], The plaintiff has filed three separate actions and motions to dismiss are pending in each action. The parties and issues of law are identical, and this Memorandum will be dispositive of each motion in the other actions [Essex v. Vinal, et al., Civil 72-0-476 [Fili

382 F.2d 58 67-2 USTC P 9612 William A. EHLERS and William A. Ehlers, Executor of theEstate of Margaret C. Ehlers, Deceased, Appellant,v.Richard P. VINAL, District Director of Internal Revenue forthr District of Nebraska, Appellee. No. 18578. United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. Aug. 15, 1967, Rehearing Denied Sept. 8,

ROBINSON, Chief Judge. This is an action instituted by William A. Ehlers, on his own. behalf and as Executor of the estate of Margaret Ehlers, against Richard P. Vinal, the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Nebraska, to recover- an alleged overpayment of income taxes, penalties, and interest for the years 1948 through 1958 in the total amount of $122,344.91 plus interest. Hereinafter we shall refer to W

Montgomery v Burlington Coat Factory of Tex., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 03127) Montgomery v Burlington Coat Factory of Tex., Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 03127 Decided on June 9, 2023 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State La

ROBINSON, Chief Judge. This is a civil action for the refund of federal income taxes and interest which were assessed against and paid by the plaintiffs for the year 1958. The defendant is the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Nebraska to whom the income taxes and interest were paid. The Court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1340. Dr. Theodore A. Peterson, and his wife Dor

POSNER, Chief Judge. The plaintiff in this unfortunately protracted, thirteen-year-old civil rights suit appeals from the dismissal of the suit on summary judgment. The parties have showered us with 198 pages of briefs, but the essential facts, duly simplified, and the legal issues, can be stated briefly. Creek, the plaintiff, is a real estate developer who wanted to build a 216

ROBINSON, Chief Judge. This is an action instituted by the plaintiff Peterson Mortuary, Inc., a citizen and resident of the State of Nebraska against Richard P. Vinal, the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Nebraska for a refund of taxes paid. The United States of America has filed a supplemental complaint in intervention for the payment of additional excise taxes and interest arising from the same tra

*228 GIBSON, Circuit Judge. These consolidated cases present a somewhat novel question for our review. The plaintiff, administratrix of the estate of Harry E. Judd, who died September 8, 1965, claims that estate taxes paid by the estate were not “taxes” but rather “deposits” as these taxes had not alleged

181 Conn. 268 (1980) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM H. STEPNEY, JR. STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DANIEL VINAL, JR. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued March 7, 1980. Decision released June 24, 1980. COTTER, C. J., LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and HEALEY, JS. *269 Anne C. Dranginis, assistant state's attorney

133 Ariz. 16 (1982) 648 P.2d 131 Francisco Mendoza SALVATIERRA; Servando Gonzales Garcia; Tim Rollins; Walter J. Warren; Amedo R. Pino; Salvador Carrascotoriz; Fernando Esquer; Francisco Azcona Astiazaran; Otto Binder; Kenneth F. Wagner and Barbara Wagner, husband and wife; George T. Gregory, Jr., and Nina M. Gregory, husband and wife; James L. Stonebreaker and Janice Stonebreaker, husband and wife; and Granger L. Vinall, Plaintif