Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Charles G. Eidson, Jr.

312 F.2d 744

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1963-02-06
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. It now appears for the first time in the petition and brief supporting the petition for rehearing that the judgment of the trial court included items other than those relating to the amount received by the taxpayers from the transactions discussed in the opinion. This appears to be conceded by the United States by the first footnote in its original brief, in which it states that the Government “is prosecuting its appeal only as to one of the issues decided below, and, therefore, the amount of taxes involved in this appeal is somewhat less than the amount of the judgment below.” The prior judgment of this Court, 310 F.2d 111, providing that the case was remanded for entry of judgment for the appellant, is therefore modified to the extent that it shall read: “The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” In all other respects this petition is Denied.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Charles G. Eidson, Jr.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. EIDSON,312 F.2d 744(5th Cir. 1963)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Charles G. EIDSON, Jr., et al.,
Appellees.
No. 19414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 6, 1963.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; Ben H. Rice, Jr., Chief Judge.
Ernest Morgan, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Michael I. Smith, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

J. Rodney Lee, of Naman, Howell, Smith Chase, Waco, Tex., for appellees, Charles G. Eidson, Jr. and wife, Lee W. Eidson, and J.D. Metz and wife, Margaret E. Metz.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, and CONNALLY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
It now appears for the first time in the petition and brief supporting the petition for rehearing that the judgment of the trial court included items other than those relating to the amount received by the taxpayers from the transactions discussed in the opinion. This appears to be conceded by the United States by the first footnote in its original brief, in which it states that the Government "is prosecuting its appeal only as to one of the issues decided below, and, therefore, the amount of taxes involved in this appeal is somewhat less than the amount of the judgment below." The prior judgment of this Court,310 F.2d 111, providing that the case was remanded for entry of judgment for the appellant, is therefore modified to the extent that it shall read: "The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

In all other respects this petition is

Denied.Page 3