§

Deborah A. Ulloa, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

04A10032 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 12, 2001)
Deborah A. Ulloa, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

14 Cited authorities

  1. St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States

    368 U.S. 208 (1961)   Cited 199 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 857, 81 S.Ct. 825, 5 L.Ed.2d 822 (1961), the only case that the authors directly cite in support of their statement, the Court simply granted a stay of the accrual of forfeitures ordered below while the case was pending in the Supreme Court.

  2. Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry Hutchinson

    511 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 206 times
    Holding a judge abuses her discretion only when her decision is contrary to law or clear error based on the evidence

  3. Blount v. Wake Elec. Membership Corp.

    162 F.R.D. 102 (E.D.N.C. 1993)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that the defendants must chose a physician near the plaintiff's residence or in the District where the action is pending and noting that "most courts require the plaintiff to submit to an examination by a physician chosen by the defendant if it is held in the venue where the plaintiff chose to file the action."

  4. Secs. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cymaticolor Corp.

    106 F.R.D. 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that party seeking tax returns must show relevance and compelling need

  5. United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra

    119 F.R.D. 625 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)   Cited 55 times
    Noting that tax returns are not immune to civil discovery

  6. Smith v. Bader

    83 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that "[a]lthough tax returns are not privileged documents, Court are reluctant to order their discovery in part because of the 'private nature of the sensitive information contained therein, and in part from the public interest in encouraging the filing by taxpayers of complete and accurate returns'"

  7. E. Auto Distribs., Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc.

    96 F.R.D. 147 (E.D. Va. 1982)   Cited 33 times
    In Eastern Auto Distributors v. Peugeot Motors, Etc., 96 F.R.D. 147, 148 (1982), a United States district court held that while courts have not recognized the existence of a general privilege against disclosure of tax returns, "a `qualified' privilege emerges from the case law that disfavors the disclosure of income tax returns as a matter of general federal policy."

  8. Mitsui & Co. v. P.R. Water Res. Auth.

    79 F.R.D. 72 (D.P.R. 1978)   Cited 36 times
    In Mitsui v. Puerto Rico Water Resources Auth., 79 F.R.D. 72 (D.P.R.1978) the court held the place of communication was the proper standard to determine the existence of an accountant/client privilege.

  9. Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co.

    34 F.R.D. 482 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)   Cited 54 times
    Granting plaintiff's motion for a protective order as to the production of his income tax returns finding that defendant did not establish a "compelling need" where the information sought could be learned from other sources such as other financial records and the plaintiff's deposition

  10. Biliske v. American Live Stock Ins. Co.

    73 F.R.D. 124 (W.D. Okla. 1977)   Cited 32 times
    Holding no privilege against disclosure of tax return of litigant who himself tenders an issue as to the amount of his income

  11. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,019 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

  12. Section 3 - Tax tables for individuals

    26 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In section 3 it is provided that the consideration to be paid by the buyer is to be $200,000 of which $165,000 is to be represented by an installment note payable to the corporation and Ward, secured by all of the stock of WHRW, Inc., which is to be placed in escrow under an escrow agreement where default in paying the note would result in title to the stock being transferred to the holder of the note or some purchaser at public sale.