In re Lillington Lumber Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• denying relief under the APA where taxpayers had an adequate remedy under the I.R.C.
• rejecting taxpayer’s claim that review to restrain enforcement of irs summons is governed by APA sections 703 and 704 because sections 7602 and 7604 and Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440 (1964) “[provide] an adequate remedy”
• rejecting taxpayer’s claim that review to restrain enforcement of IRS summons is governed by APA secs. 703 and 704 because secs. 7602 and 7604 and Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 443 (1964), “[provide] an adequate remedy’
• denying relief under the APA where taxpayers had an adequate remedy under the I.R.C.
• denying relief under the APA where taxpayers had an adequate remedy under the I.R.C.
• rejecting taxpayer’s claim that review to restrain enforcement of IRS summons is governed by APA sections 703 and 704 because sections 7602 and 7604 and Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440 (1964) “[provide] an adequate remedy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).