Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Escro Storage and Cartage, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Frontier Distribution Line, Inc. and Internal Revenueservice, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 456 F.2d 182
Argued Feb. 14, 1972.Decided Feb. 16, 1972
Richard B. Scott, Buffalo, N. Y. (Eugene C. Tenney, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Leonard J. Henzke, Jr. (Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and Crombie J. D. Garrett, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice), for the United States.
Robert D. Gunderman, Buffalo, N. Y., for Frontier Distribution Line, Inc.
Before FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Escro Storage and Cartage, Inc. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Curtin, J., dismissing its complaint against both defendants, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Frontier Distribution Line, Inc. (Frontier). The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's action for damages against the IRS, citing 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a), (c) and (h). The court then refused in its discretion to hear plaintiff's pendent claim against Frontier. Plaintiff argues on appeal that jurisdiction exists under 26 U.S.C. Secs. 6335, 7426, and 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1340, 1346(a) (2) and (e). We have considered these claims and on this record find them without merit.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.