Robins & Weill, Inc. v. United States

4 Citing cases

  1. Wrangler Apparel Corp. v. U.S.

    931 F. Supp. 420 (M.D.N.C. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 329. The General Insurance test was applied by this Court in Robins Weill Inc. v. United States, 382 F. Supp. 1207 (M.D.N.C. 1974). In Robins the taxpayer corporation had purchased insurance accounts and covenants not to compete from two insurance agencies.

  2. United States v. Leggett Platt, Inc.

    542 F.2d 655 (6th Cir. 1976)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that the work product doctrine also protects work produced in anticipation of other litigation

    Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411, 413, 78 S.Ct. 377, 379, 2 L.Ed.2d 370 (1958). Accord, FTC v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 387 U.S. 244, 87 S.Ct. 1622, 18 L.Ed.2d 749 (1967); Kixmiller v. SEC, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 492 F.2d 641, 645 (1974); United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 220-221 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 934, 93 S.Ct. 235, 34 L.Ed.2d 189 (1972); L. G. Balfour Co. v. FTC, 442 F.2d 1, 2 (7th Cir. 1971); Robins Weill, Inc. v. United States, 63 F.R.D. 73 (M.D.N.C. 1974). There is no allegation that the proceedings against LP stem from racial or religious animosity, see, e.g., Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 454-456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 505-506, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886); United States v. Swanson, 509 F.2d 1205, 1208-1209 (8th Cir. 1975), or from a desire to punish LP for exercising its constitutional rights, see, e.g., United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974), United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc).

  3. Richard S. Miller Sons, Inc. v. U.S.

    537 F.2d 446 (Fed. Cir. 1976)   Cited 16 times
    In Richard S. Miller Sons, Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 431, 537 F.2d 446 (1976), for example, the court considered whether a taxpayer was entitled to a depreciation deduction for 1,383 insurance expirations that it had purchased from another insurer.

    Exclusive of the amounts for the covenant not to compete and interest, the price paid by Miller Sons was for two kinds of intangible assets: (1) goodwill or property in the nature of goodwill and (2) for the information in the 1,383 expirations and accompanying records. General Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Commissioner, 401 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1968); Robins Weill, Inc. v. United States, 382 F. Supp. 1207, 1216 (M.D.N.Car. 1974). By acquisition of the Arch expirations, Miller Sons, at one stroke, nearly doubled its volume.

  4. Auburn v. Planning Board

    12 Mass. App. Ct. 998 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 5 times
    Upholding provisions of zoning by-law requiring site plan approval through issuance of special permit "for all buildings to be erected in a business district," because site plan review was based on specifically enumerated criteria and therefore "the requirement that a site plan be approved before the issuance of a special permit does not impose impermissible restrictions on the allowed use"

    See Bergen Rambler, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp., 30 F.R.D. 334, 336-337 (D.N.J. 1962). See also Robins Weill, Inc. v. United States, 63 F.R.D. 73, 76-77 (M.D.N.C. 1974). Judgment affirmed.