# Putnam v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 9, 1994 · 32 F.3d 911

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413515

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard J. PUTNAM and Doretha G. Putnam, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 9, 1994
- **Citations:** 32 F.3d 911; 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6344; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 24399; 1994 WL 486875
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garza
- **Judges:** Garza, Demoss, Parker
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413515

## Opinion text

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially;
I agree with everything in the very fine opinion of Judge DeMoss.
As a senior judge, I write specially to tell amicus and my fellow senior judges that this was not the best of cases to try the validity or extent of 28 U.S.C. §§ 374 and 456 and their relationship to the tax laws.
If during his active service Judge Putnam had lived in Lafayette and upon his taking senior status he had moved and started residing in Abbeville, I think the result in this case might well have been different.
As Judge DeMoss points out, the result in this ease is because of the facts involved and it will be the law only in cases with similar facts in the future.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413515. Public record. Not legal advice.