District of Columbia v. Murphy, 7780.
Decision Date | 24 March 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 7780.,7780. |
Citation | 119 F.2d 451,73 App. DC 347 |
Parties | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. MURPHY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Richmond B. Keech, Corp. Counsel, Vernon E. West, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Glenn Simmon, Asst. Corp. Counsel, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Harry R. Turkel, of Washington, D. C., and Henry C. Murphy, pro se, for respondent.
Phineas Indritz, amicus curiae.
Before STEPHENS, MILLER and VINSON, Associate Justices.
This is a companion case to District of Columbia v. DeHart, ___ App.D.C. ___, 119 F.2d 449, decided this day. The applicable statute is the same;1 the same issue of law is presented, and, in our view, the case is controlled by the reasoning of the decision of this court in Sweeney v. District of Columbia.2 However, in view of certain differences in the facts found by the Board of Tax Appeals, this separate opinion is filed. In the present case, the Board's findings reveal that respondent Murphy graduated from college in 1929; immediately thereafter accepted employment in Detroit, Michigan; took up residence in Detroit; "became a registered voter in Wayne County, Michigan, and still is such; and has ever since voted in the elections and primaries there, the last time being in the Michigan primaries in September 1940." In January, 1935, respondent accepted employment in the District of Columbia with the Treasury Department of the United States; was blanketed into Civil Service in 1938, and is still in government service. Respondent is an unmarried man; he resides in an apartment in the District of Columbia, furnished with his own furniture and equipment; his parents live in California. Concerning his intentions he testified:
The government relies particularly upon certain testimony of respondent — to challenge the finding of the Board that he was not domiciled within the District of Columbia on December 31, 1939 — as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
District of Columbia v. Murphy District of Columbia v. De Hart
...cases were affirmed on review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449; 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451. The cases were brought here on writs of certiorari because of the importance of the questions involved. 313 U.S. 556, 61 S.Ct. 1103......
-
Alexander v. District of Columbia
...domicile. 1. It was conceded that any claim for 1966 taxes was barred by the statute of limitations. 2. District of Columbia v. Murphy, 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451 (1941), and District of Columbia v. De Hart, 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449 (1941). 3. See also Adams v. Adams, D.C.Mun.App., ......
-
Beedy v. District of Columbia, 7922.
...in Maine and not in the District of Columbia. Reversed. 1 72 App.D.C. 30, 113 F.2d 25, 129 A. L.R. 1370. 2 District of Columbia v. Murphy, 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451; District of Columbia v. De Hart, 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449. 3 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. ___. 4 See cases c......
-
Pace v. District of Columbia, 8274.
...United States Court of Appeals in Sweeney v. District of Columbia, 72 App.D.C. 30, 113 F.2d 25, 129 A.L.R. 1370; District of Columbia v. Murphy, 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451 and District of Columbia v. DeHart, 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449, concludes as a matter of law that at the time of ......