Citation network
Flora Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1960
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Flora v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 362 U.S. 145 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Flora v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) Flora v. UnitedSearch
-
a)(1). Flora v. UnitedSearch
-
we regard ordinary principles of English prose as irrelevant to a construction of those enactments. Cf. Commissioner v. AckerSearch
-
Nevertheless, the opinion of this Court in Cheatham v. UnitedSearch
-
principle by the interested government agencies and by the bar. So far as appears, Suhr v. UnitedSearch
-
by the bar at least until 1940, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Government's position in Coates v. UnitedSearch
-
The decision of the Court of Appeals in Flora conflicted with Bushmiaer v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 230 F.2d 146 (C.A. 8th Cir.). Cf. Coates v. UnitedSearch
-
Sirian Lamp Co. v. ManningSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Suhr v. UnitedSearch
-
a substantial difference of opinion arose after 1940, when the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Coates v. UnitedSearch
-
Stat. 283. See also Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
and limitations provisions in prior tax statutes. United States v. MagoonSearch
-
Union Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hills v. UnitedSearch
-
Blair v. BirkenstockSearch
-
See United States v. EmerySearch
-
Smietanka v. IndianaSearch
-
See Cary v. CurtisSearch
-
Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
of Cheatham also corresponds to that of the Court of Appeals in this case. 246 F.2d at 930. See also Bushmiaer v. UnitedSearch
-
In Old Colony Trust Co. v. CommissionerSearch
-
Stat. 877. The possibility of dual jurisdiction in this type of situation was confirmed by cases such as Camp v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 44 F.2d 126, and Ohio Steel Foundary Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Petitioner cites two earlier cases in which the Government failed to raise the jurisdictional issue. Bowers v. Kerbaugh-EmpireSearch
-
Baldwin v. HigginsSearch
-
Sampson v. WelchSearch
-
Charleston Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sterling v. HamSearch
-
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. BowersSearch
-
Heinemann Chemical Co. v. HeinerSearch
-
Welch v. HassettSearch
-
Leavitt v. HendricksenSearch
-
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-EmpireSearch
-
only two are clearly cases in which the jurisdictional issue was present and not raised by the Government. Tsivoglou v. UnitedSearch
-
Thomas v. UnitedSearch
-
McFadden v. UnitedSearch
-
which had been paid. The relevant facts of the last case, Peerless Paper Box Mfg. Co. v. RoutzahnSearch
-
Code when a taxpayer both appealed to the Tax Court and brought suit in a Federal District Court. Brampton Woolen Co. v. FieldSearch
-
Camp v. UnitedSearch
-
Emery v. UnitedSearch
-
Old Colony R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Flora v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Commissioner v. AckerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial