United States v. Meininger

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Fond Du Lac Reservation Business Committee

    906 F. Supp. 523 (D. Minn. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Once the IRS makes a prima facie showing, then the burden shifts to the Respondent either to disprove one or more of the Powell factors, or to demonstrate that enforcement of the Summons would constitute an abuse of the Court's process. United States v. Meininger, 101 F.R.D. 700, 703 (D.Neb. 1984), citing United States v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 316, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 2367, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1977). Such an abuse of process "would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation."

  2. Fidelity Trust Company v. Brennan

    1993 Mass. App. Div. 230 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    Similarly, relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (5) rests solely within the discretion of the motion judge, Gibbs v. Maxwell House, A Div. of Gen. Foods, 738 F.2d 1153, 1153 (11th Cir. 1984), who was in no way required to vacate the summary judgment in this case solely because the Brennans elected to make full payment of that portion of the judgment which adjudicated the plaintiff's claim. The first clause of Rule 60(b) (5) pertaining to judgments which have been "satisfied, released or discharged" is "rarely of use," United States v. AmericanNat'l Bank Tr. Co., 101 F.R.D. 700, 771 (N.D.Ill. 1984), except, for example, in those situations where "damages are paid before trial or a tortfeasor or obligor has paid the judgment debt." Gibbs v. MaxwellHouse, supra at 1155.