ESTATE OF LEYMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 385.
Decided April 4, 1966.
Certiorari granted; 344 F.2d 763, vacated and remanded.
Daniel M. Gribbon, William H. Allen and Matthew J. Zinn for petitioner.
Solicitor General Marshall for respondent.
Upon the consent of the Solicitor General and consideration of the entire record, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to remand it to the United States Tax Court for computation and imposition of civil fraud penalty in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 89-359, 80 Stat. 28.
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILWAY CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
238 F. Supp. 528, vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
Hugh B. Cox and William H. Allen for appellants.
Douglas F. Smith, Howard J. Trienens, George L. Saunders, Jr., John E. McCullough, S. R. Brittingham, [383 U.S. 832, 833] Jr., Monroe E. Clinton, Frank S. Farrell, Lawrence W. Hobbs, L. E. Torinus, Jr., and E. L. Van Dellen for appellees Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., and E. P. Porter, Alan C. Furth, Charles W. Burkett, Robert L. Pierce and Thormund A. Miller for appellees Southern Pacific Co. et al., on memoranda suggesting that the cause is moot. Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, Lloyd G. Hammel and Richard W. Sabin, Assistant Attorneys General, John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Frank P. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for intervening plaintiffs-appellees, Regulatory Commissions of the State of Arizona et al., and Mary Moran Pajalich and J. Thomason Phelps for intervening plaintiffs-appellees, the State of California et al., on motions to affirm. Solicitor General Marshall and Robert W. Ginnane on the memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission in response to the suggestions of mootness and in opposition to the motions to affirm.
We treat the order of the District Court as divisible from the appeals in No. 159, Chicago & North Western R. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., and No. 576, United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. Upon consideration of the memoranda of certain appellees and an examination of the entire record, the judgment is vacated as respects the parties to this appeal and to that extent the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. [383 U.S. 832, 834]