Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Harry Pargament v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, JR., As District Director of The Manhattan District Internal Revenue Office, and The United States of America, 391 F.2d 934, 2d Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District in an open court decision. The Southern District had dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated in Judge Tenney's earlier opinion. The appellate court found that the district court correctly lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1968-03-18 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 391 F.2d 934 Docket: 31711_1

    Original Title

    Harry Pargament v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, Jr., as District Director of the Manhattan District Internal Revenue Office, and the United States of America, 391 F.2d 934, 2d Cir. (1968)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District in an open court decision. The Southern District had dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated in Judge Tenney's earlier opinion. The appellate court found that the district court correctly lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views1 page

    Harry Pargament v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, JR., As District Director of The Manhattan District Internal Revenue Office, and The United States of America, 391 F.2d 934, 2d Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District in an open court decision. The Southern District had dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated in Judge Tenney's earlier opinion. The appellate court found that the district court correctly lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    391 F.

    2d 934
    68-1 USTC P 9301

    Harry PARGAMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Edward J. FITZGERALD, Jr., as District Director of the
    Manhattan District Internal Revenue Office, and
    the United States of America, Defendant-Appellees.
    No. 352, Docket 31711.

    United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


    Argued March 18, 1968.
    Decided March 18, 1968.

    Robert Barko, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.


    Yale L. Rosenberg, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Robert M.
    Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., Grant B. Hering, Asst. U.S. Atty., for Southern
    District of New York, on the brief), for defendant-appellees.
    Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and
    CLARIE, District Judge.1
    PER CURIAM:

    We affirm in open court the judgment of the Southern District which dismissed
    the plaintiff's complaint for the reasons stated in Judge Tenney's opinion at 272
    F.Supp. 553 (1967), as the district court lacked jurisdiction over the subject
    matter.

    Of the District Court of Connecticut, sitting by designation

    You might also like