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
United States of America and Barbara A. Kilty, Richardgutierrez, Special Agents, Internal Revenueservice, Petitioners-appellees, v. Deak-perera International Banking Corporation, Respondent,andcharles v. Stephenson, Intervenor-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, - 610 F.2d 89
Second Circuit.Oct. 26, 1979
Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., George J. Kelly, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, M. Carr Ferguson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Charles V. Stephenson, pro se.
Before MULLIGAN, OAKES and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The district court enforced two Internal Revenue summonses issued pursuant to I.R.C. § 7602, directing Deak-Perera, a financial institution, to forward documents in its possession relating to appellant Stephenson's financial status during the years 1975-1977. The documents were necessary to determine Stephenson's income tax liability in furtherance of an I.R.A. joint civil-criminal investigation. The day after the district court's order, Deak-Perera complied fully with the summons. Since this was the only relief requested, there is no longer any live controversy between the parties. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. Barney v. United States, 568 F.2d 116, 117 (8th Cir. 1978); Kurshan v. Riley, 484 F.2d 952, 952-53 (4th Cir. 1973).
It is so ordered.