Affiliations

• Nolan v. United States

  District Court, D. Arizona · 1982-01-07 · cited 13×

  In Nolan v. United States, the plaintiff challenged IRS jeopardy and termination assessments totaling over $78,000 for 1980 and 1981 taxes, which were based on information from police surveillance linking the taxpayer to illegal activities like drugs and prostitution. The court determined that the assessments were reasonable because the taxpayer had concealed assets, including cash and jewelry transferred to his attorney, and his financial solvency appeared imperiled. However, the court found the estimated amounts of income inappropriate due to substantial doubts raised by conflicting reports from an informant and uncertainties in alleged drug sales and other income. Consequently, the court remanded the matter to the Secretary of the Treasury for redetermination of the income amount under 26 U.S.C. § 7429(b)(3), while upholding the reasonableness of making the assessments.

  taxesprocedurefederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,460 words)

• Genson v. Ripley

  District Court, D. Arizona · 1981-12-18 · cited 4×

  The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing the Smithsonian Institution and its employees for negligence, misrepresentation, and fraud related to the evaluation and handling of a coin he donated in 1975, which he believed demonstrated ancient Gaelic exploration but which the museum identified as a Mexican token. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. The core reasoning was that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the plaintiff failed to file a timely administrative claim within two years of the coin's return in 1977, misrepresentation and fraud claims are explicitly excluded from the Act, and the individual employees were entitled to immunity for actions within their duties; additionally, any state tort claims were barred by statutes of limitations.

  federal powerproceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,120 words)

• Harbor Mechanical, Inc. v. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

  District Court, D. Arizona · 1980-08-15 · cited 7×

  This case involved construction contractors Harbor Mechanical and Schuchart suing engineering firm Burns and McDonnell for negligence in drafting plans and supervising work on a power plant project owned by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, alleging that poor coordination caused them extra costs; the suits were brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The court treated the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and addressed claims of negligence and, in Harbor's case, negligent misrepresentation. It granted summary judgment dismissing the negligence counts, holding that Arizona law requires privity of contract for a contractor to recover economic losses from an architect or engineer and that Blecick v. School Dist. No. 18 controlled over any contrary implications in Reber v. Chandler H.S. Dist. #202. The court denied dismissal of the misrepresentation claim, finding factual disputes over justifiable reliance that required trial. The decision rested on Erie doctrine application of state tort and contract principles to the absence of any direct contractual duty.

  business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,739 words)