Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Edwin J. Jolly and Helene N. Jolly v. State of New Mexico and Taxation & Revenue Department, State of New Mexico, 28 F.3d 113, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiffs sued the State of New Mexico seeking a tax refund that they claimed was owed to them as federal retirees. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Tax Injunction Act and Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the state.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Edwin J. Jolly and Helene N. Jolly v. State of New Mexico and Taxation & Revenue Department, State of New Mexico, 28 F.3d 113, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The plaintiffs sued the State of New Mexico seeking a tax refund that they claimed was owed to them as federal retirees. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Tax Injunction Act and Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the state.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-06-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 28 F.3d 113 Docket: 94-2080

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs sued the State of New Mexico seeking a tax refund that they claimed was owed to them as federal retirees. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Tax Injunction Act and Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the state.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Edwin J. Jolly and Helene N. Jolly v. State of New Mexico and Taxation & Revenue Department, State of New Mexico, 28 F.3d 113, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiffs sued the State of New Mexico seeking a tax refund that they claimed was owed to them as federal retirees. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Tax Injunction Act and Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the state.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    28 F.

    3d 113
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Edwin J. JOLLY and Helene N. Jolly, Plaintiffs-Appellants,


    v.
    STATE of New Mexico and Taxation & Revenue Department,
    State
    of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 94-2080.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    June 20, 1994.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    The plaintiffs-appellants sued the State of New Mexico essentially seeking a


    refund of state taxes which they claim are due to them as federal retirees, but
    alleging various constitutional violations. The district court granted the State's
    motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
    granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court cited, among other things, the
    prohibitions of the Tax Injunction Act, the inapplicability of 42 U.S.C.1983 as a
    source of authority to sue a state, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police,
    491 U.S. 58 (1989), and the bar of the Eleventh Amendment.

    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, substantially for the reasons

    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, substantially for the reasons
    set forth in its order filed March 11, 1994.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    You might also like