U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1954

Robique v. Lambert

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 22, 1954 · Hutcheson, Holmes, Borah

214 F.2d 3 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

G. W. Gill, Gerard H. Schrieber, New Orleans, La., for appellants., M. Hepburn Many, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Frederic G. Rita, Robert N. Anderson, Special Assts. to Atty. Gen., George R. Blue, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

J. L. Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., Inc. (5th Cir. 1961)
Barnum v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1964)
Lassoff v. Gray (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 1962)
Sam G. McDonald v. Robert L. Phinney, Director of Internal Revenue, First District of Texas, and the United States (1st Cir. 1961)
Nussbaumer v. United States (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1959)
United States v. Curd (5th Cir. 1958)
Noel Smith v. Ernest M. Flinn, Director of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1958)
United States v. Curd (5th Cir. 1958)
E. C. Lloyd v. George D. Patterson, District Director of Internal Revenue, District of Alabama (5th Cir. 1957)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered under Section 3653, 26 U.S.C.A., in the consolidated causes dismissing for want of jurisdiction suits appellants had brought to restrain the appellee from levying and collecting a special tax of $250.00 on coin operated pin ball machines.

Appellant is here urging upon us:

(1) that within the teachings of Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 52 S.Ct. 260, 76 L.Ed. 422, this case presents an exception to the operation of the statute; and (2) that the statute is unconstitutional.

We think it clear that neither of these positions is well taken.

The district judge, in a carefully considered opinion, 1 has set out the issues joined and the reasons supporting the judgment. Because we find ourselves in full agreement not only with the result reached but with the reasons given by him, we will content ourselves with saying so and will not further labor the matter.

The judgment is right. It is affirmed.

. Robique v. Lambert (Kapsos v. Lambert), D.C., 114 F.Supp. 305.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.