United States v. Rindskopf
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Llorente v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
- United States v. Rindskopf (Supreme Court of the United States 1882)
- United States v. Stinson (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 2005)
- Chariot Plastics, Inc. v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
- United States v. Emmett K. Troyer, 2 (7th Cir. 1993)
- In re Robert J. Burns, Debtor. Robert J. Burns v. United States (9th Cir. 1992)
- In re Rasbury (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama 1991)
- United States v. Walter H. Schroeder, Josephine J. Schroeder, and Louis Brodnan (7th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Kontaratos (District Court, D. Maine 1984)
- United States v. Stonehill (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1976)
- Rostykus v. Rostykus (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1974)
- United States v. Felix Benitez Rexach (1st Cir. 1973)
- Pizzarello v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
- In re Letters Rogatory Issued by Director of Inspection of Government of India (2d Cir. 1967)
- Fulton Container Co., Inc. v. United States (9th Cir. 1966)
- Monday v. Milwaukee County Expressway Commission (Wis. 1966)
- United States v. Joseph G. Lease (2d Cir. 1965)
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 of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the decision of the cir-. cult court and remanding the ease for a new trial.
The assessment of the commissioner of internal revenue was only prima facie evidence of the amount due as taxes upon the spirits distilled between the dates mentioned. It established a prima facie case of liability, and if not-impeached it was sufficient to justify a recovery; but every material fact, upon which his liability was asserted was open to contestation. The distiller and his sureties were at liberty to show that no spirits, or a less quantity than
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.