LAUGHLIN v. HARRINGTON

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 13724.

Attorney(S)

Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., appellant pro se, with whom Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U.S. Atty., and Joseph M.F. Ryan, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time record was filed, and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, also entered appearances for appellee.

Judges

Henry White Edgerton
John Anthony Danaher
Walter Maximillian Bastian

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 13724.

Attorney(S)

Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., appellant pro se, with whom Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U.S. Atty., and Joseph M.F. Ryan, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time record was filed, and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, also entered appearances for appellee.

Judges

Henry White Edgerton
John Anthony Danaher
Walter Maximillian Bastian

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

James J. LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. Russell C. HARRINGTON, Commissioner of Internal Re

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asked specific performance of an alleged contract of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to show appellant records, statements, reports, and other documentary evidence regarding a tax claim against appellant. Since these papers are the property of the United States, the suit is in substance against the United States. The United States has not consented to such a suit. We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint; of course without prejudice to any remedy appellant may have in the Tax Court where, counsel have informed us, a suit is pending.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

James J. LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. Russell C. HARRINGTON, Commissioner of Internal Re

Comments