1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 766 F.2d
  5. 766 F.2d 770 (1985)
 

EISENBERG v. GAGNON

Nos. 84-1214, 84-1225 and 84-1261.

766 F.2d 770 (1985)

Martin EISENBERG and Arthur Nissen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Frederick M. GAGNON, Bernard A. Boyers, David E. Wasserstrom, Charles Lieberman, Edward Hershenhorn, David Weinstein, John W. Pelino, Morris L. Chucas, Tom P. Monteverde, Wasserstrom & Chucas, and Pelino, Wasserstrom, Chucas & Monteverde, P.C. v. GELROD, FOX AND CO., Clarence Rainess & Co., Seidman and Seidman, Gruntal and Co., Marvin Welsch and Jack Panich. Appeal of Martin EISENBERG and Arthur Nissen, in Nos. 84-1214 & 84-1225. Appeal of David E. WASSERSTROM, in No. 84-1261.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided June 28, 1985.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied July 26, 1985.

As Amended July 26, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael R. Needle, Lawrence E. Feldman, Needle, Feldman & Herman, Philadelphia, Pa., Richard D. Greenfield, David B. Zlotnick (Argued), Greenfield, Chimicles & Lewis, Haverford, Pa., for appellants and cross-appellees Martin Eisenberg and Arthur Nissen.

Edward C. Mengel, Jr. (Argued), Margaret A. Skelly, White and Williams, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee and cross-appellant David E. Wasserstrom.

James M. Marsh (Argued), Daniel J. Ryan, Daniel P. Lynch, LaBrum and Doak, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Pelino, Wasserstrom, Chucas & Monteverde, P.C.

Richard M. Meltzer, Kenneth S. Siegel (Argued), Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Clarence Rainess & Co.

Wilbur Greenberg (Argued), Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Charles Lieberman and David Weinstein.

Before SEITZ, GIBBONS and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied July 26, 1985.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Martin Eisenberg and Arthur Nissen were investors in two limited partnerships, Bar Associates (Bar) and Cay Associates (Cay), which were part of a series of limited partnerships designed as tax shelters. Their investment proved worthless and, moreover, the Internal Revenue Service eventually...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases