District Court, N.D. Georgia — appointed by Harry S. Truman
Clow Corp. v. Metro Pipeline Co., Inc.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1977-08-17 · cited 9×
This case involves a subcontractor, Clow Corporation, suing general contractor Metro Pipeline Company and surety USF&G for the unpaid balance on cast iron pipe and materials supplied for a public water main project, along with contractual service charges of 1% per month on past-due accounts. Metro raised an affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging defective goods and seeking a set-off of about $74,000, but the court found no timely objections, rejections, or notices of breach by Metro, and that Metro had repeatedly acknowledged the debt. The court granted Clow's motion for summary judgment against Metro for $190,417.30 plus service charges and against USF&G for $182,843.04 plus service charges (applying Georgia bond statutes and Miller Act analogies to include contractual interest), while denying the defendants' partial summary judgment motion on service charges and dismissing the counterclaim.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Hicks v. Califano
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1977-06-27 · cited 1×
The case involved a bankruptcy trustee for North American Acceptance Corporation suing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and the Commissioner of Education to recover on federally insured student loans that went into default. The plaintiff claimed coverage under a July 1971 master contract of insurance, estoppel based on government approval of pre-stamp disbursements, and an express waiver of the regulation in 45 C.F.R. § 177.42(b) that barred coverage for loans disbursed before insurance issuance. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that insurance issuance occurred only when each individual loan application was stamped “federally insured,” that the regulation required an express waiver by the Commissioner (which never occurred), and that estoppel could not run against the government acting in its sovereign capacity.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Shaver v. Bell
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1977-04-20 · cited 12×
This case involves a Freedom of Information Act request by the petitioner for the contents of his FBI file, portions of which respondents withheld under statutory exemptions after an administrative process. The court reviewed all 470 pages of documents in camera, grouped into 52 sections, and assessed claims under exemptions (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), and (b)(7)(F) for internal agency matters, inter-agency memoranda, personal privacy in law enforcement files, confidential sources, investigative techniques, and safety of personnel. The court determined that the documents qualified as investigation files compiled for law enforcement purposes and that the claimed exemptions properly protected against disclosure of identifying information, sources, and related risks. It therefore granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice.
criminal lawprocedure
Laird v. United States
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1975-02-26 · cited 3×
Taxpayers sued the United States seeking refunds of income taxes paid for 1967 and 1968 after the IRS disallowed depreciation deductions taken by their Subchapter S corporation, owner of the Atlanta Falcons NFL team. The deductions stemmed from the 1966 purchase of NFL assets, where the corporation allocated most of the $8.5 million purchase price to forty-two player contracts and options (depreciated over 5.25 years) rather than to the nondepreciable NFL franchise. The IRS reallocated the bulk of the price to the franchise, resulting in assessments against the taxpayers. The court considered whether the contract allocation was accurate or tax-driven, evaluated evidence of player values provided by witnesses, and addressed an alternative claim that television rights constituted a depreciable asset, ultimately determining the proper allocation between the assets.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
National Service Industries, Inc. v. United States
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1973-09-13 · cited 1×
This case involved National Service Industries seeking income tax refunds for fiscal years 1963-1965 after acquiring assets from two competing linen and uniform supply businesses. The core dispute concerned whether portions of the lump-sum purchase prices could be allocated to covenants not to compete (for ten years) and customer lists, allowing the buyer to amortize those intangible assets over their useful lives as tax deductions. For the Munger acquisition, the court examined expert valuations supporting an $800,000 allocation to the covenant amid a $2.4 million total price and found no binding agreement against such allocation. For the Mechanics transaction, the taxpayer provided no expert evidence or breakdown separating the covenant's value from other intangibles like goodwill and customer lists totaling $70,743.40. The court held that the taxpayer bears the burden to prove both error in the IRS assessment and specific facts supporting any refund amount, denying recovery where evidence was insufficient.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Fotomat Corporation
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1970-09-23 · cited 13×
Eastman Kodak sued Fotomat Corporation for unfair competition, claiming that Fotomat's drive-thru kiosks infringed Kodak's trademarks and trade dress by using a yellow background with red or black accents and the KODAK mark, which allegedly misled the public into believing the kiosks were operated by Kodak for film processing. Fotomat denied the claims and filed a cross-bill alleging similar misleading practices by Kodak. After a consolidated hearing on temporary and permanent injunctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the court addressed the parties' contentions regarding trade dress and confusion but declined to grant injunctive relief on multiple claims, citing voluntary changes already underway by the parties, lack of prior requests for modifications, and insufficient basis for relief on certain issues.
business & regulatoryprocedure