Case Summaries

Tax Law

[12/24] Davis v. Pac. Capital Bank, N. A.
A creditor who imposes a flat finance charge that does not vary with the term of a Refund Anticipation Loan does not have to refund a portion of the charge as "unearned interest" under 15 U.S.C. section 1615 when the loan is repaid earlier than anticipated in the loan agreement.

[12/19] Ford v. Pryor
Orders denying plaintiff relief relating to the attempts of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess and collect income taxes from plaintiff are affirmed over plaintiff's meritless claims. Also, the court finds that both of plaintiff's appeals were frivolous, bordering on vexatious, and brought to delay and obstruct, and consequently imposes monetary sanctions and filing restrictions on plaintiff.

[12/19] Russell v. US
In an action to quiet title in plaintiffs' real property on which the government holds a recorded federal tax lien, a judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 7425(b), preempts state law and leaves federal tax liens undisturbed where the government did not receive notice of a nonjudicial sale.

[12/12] Sklar v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
A tax court decision affirming the IRS's disallowance of deductions plaintiffs claimed for tuition and fees paid to their children's Orthodox Jewish day schools is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' 1995 tuition payments were not deductible as charitable contributions under the Internal Revenue Code; and 2) a closing agreement between the IRS and Church of Scientology does not constitutionally and administratively require the IRS to allow charitable deductions for plaintiffs' tuition payments.

[12/11] Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue
Alabama's sales and use tax on diesel fuel, with its exemptions for motor and water carriers, does not discriminate against railroad companies in violation of Section 306(1)(d) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Plaintiff was properly denied preliminary injunctive relief.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[12/29] Abbotts v. Campbell
Participants in a Common Stock Purchase Agreement failed to show that the nondisclosure of a waiver of certain provisions of that Agreement was a proximate cause of their investment losses. The investors also failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence warranting equitable tolling of the six-year statute of limitations specified by Minnesota Statute section 541.05.

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

[12/29] Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Investments
In a lawsuit arising out of an alleged hostile takeover attempt of a publicly traded company, dismissal of complaint is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the claim against co-defendant for insufficient service of process when co-defendant had already waived that defense; 2) the district court's dismissal of one count is affirmed as plaintiff did not allege that defendants were beneficial owners of plaintiff's stock, thus such defendants were not part of a section 13(d)(3) group required to file a Schedule 13D form; 3) a fraud claim was not within the scope of an arbitration clause because the conduct of the South African defendants giving rise to the claim was not "reasonably foreseeable" in 1994 when the licensing agreement and arbitration provision were executed, and thus the dispute did not "arise" out of the agreement; and 4) even in light of the general federal policy in favor of private commercial dispute resolution, the parties' licensing agreement arbitration clause did not cover not cover the fraud claim.

[12/23] Adcock v. Freightliner LLC
In an action involving a card check agreement between co-defendants, dismissal of complaint for failure to allege a violation is affirmed where the district court correctly determined that co-defendant did not deliver a "thing of value" to remaining co-defendants in violation of section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

[12/22] Illinois Bell Tele. Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Illinois, Inc.
In a suit against a group of affiliated corporations claiming that defendants failed to pay for telecommunications services that the plaintiff had sold to a company in violation of plaintiff's federal tariffs filed with the FCC, its state tariffs filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission, and an interconnection agreement, a dismissal ruling is reversed where plaintiff produced enough evidence to bring defendant-parent company within the district court's personal jurisdiction.

More...

Sentencing

[12/31] US v. House
Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distribution of crack cocaine is affirmed where the district court: 1) properly adjusted base offense level due to defendant's obstruction of justice in asking defense witness not to testify; 2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence based on the disparity in the sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine; and 3) properly considered all the requisite factors under sentencing law.

[12/31] US v. Spinelli
Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, both for the purpose of increasing and maintaining a position in a racketeering enterprise, and related offenses are affirmed. Although the prosecutor erred by vouching to the jury that the government's cooperating accomplices had never perjured themselves or falsely implicated anybody in a crime, her improper remarks did not justify disturbing the verdict.

[12/31] Singh v. US Attorney Gen.
Petitioner was properly deemed deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony (burglary) for which a sentence of at least one year was imposed. A conviction in adult court is a conviction for immigration purposes, no matter how old the alien was at the time of the offense.

[12/30] US v. Barraza-Ramos
Sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony is reversed and remanded. The district court incorrectly applied an upward departure for a felony "crime of violence" where defendant's previous offense of felony aggravated battery is not categorically a crime of violence.

[12/30] US v. Algarate-Valencia
District court did not commit plain error when it gave defendant's counsel only thirty seconds to speak at his sentencing hearing, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. The forty-six month sentence for illegal re-entry of a removed alien, which reflected a downward departure and fell at the bottom of the resulting Guidelines range, was substantively reasonable.

More...