Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Cooper Agency, Inc. v. Harold M. McLeod District Director of Internal Revenue and United States of America

Cooper Agency, Inc. v. Harold M. McLeod Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue & United States of Am., 348 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1965)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-08-04
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • complaint alleged that plaintiffs were not transferees because at no time were transfers made without full, fair, and adequate consideration

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cooper Agency, Inc. v. Harold M. McLeod District Director of Internal Revenue and United States of America. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
COOPER AGENCY INC. v. McLEOD,348 F.2d 919(4th Cir. 1965)
COOPER AGENCY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Harold M. McLEOD, District
Director of Internal Revenue and United States of America, Appellees.
No. 9871.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 4, 1965.
Decided August 4, 1965.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Columbia; J. Robert Martin, Jr., Judge.
Robert J. Thomas and N. Welch Morrisette, Jr., Columbia, S.C. (Gedney M. Howe, Jr., Arthur G. Howe, Charleston, S.C., Tompkins, McMaster Thomas, and Cooper, Gary, Nexsen Pruet, Columbia, S.C., on brief), for appellants.

George F. Lynch, Attorney, Department of Justice (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson and Meyer Rothwacks, Attorneys, Department of Justice, and Terrell L. Glenn, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs seek to test their tax liabilities in an action for an injunction and for removal of the cloud cast upon their properties by the tax liens. The judgment of the District Court dismissing these complaints is affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Judge.1

We recently considered similar contentions and held them unavailing.2At about the same time the Second and Third Circuits arrived at the same conclusion.3

Affirmed.Page 985
  1. 235 F. Supp. 276. ↩
  2. Broadwell v. United States, 4 Cir.,343 F.2d 470. ↩
  3. Falik v. United States, 2 Cir.,343 F.2d 38; Quinn v. Hook, 3 Cir.,341 F.2d 920. ↩