- 2 -
104(a)(2).1 Because petitioner's motion does not provide a basis
for the disposition of all of the issues in dispute in this case,
petitioner's motion is correctly characterized as a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and will be referred to as such herein.
As explained in greater detail below, we shall deny
petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the ground
that the issue raised by the motion is not ripe for summary
adjudication.
Background2
During the period 1987 through 1991, petitioner and his then
wife were in the business of growing orchids for sale, operating
under the name Fred Henry's Paradise of Orchids. Between 1987
and 1991, petitioner applied a product known as Benlate to his
orchids for the intended purpose of preventing and controlling
disease. Benlate is manufactured by Dupont and marketed by
Universal Enterprises Supply Corp. (Universal). After petitioner
applied Benlate to his orchids, the orchids gradually showed
signs of severe damage including interference with normal growth
patterns, "chloretic" color, root loss, defoliation, and death of
plants. As a result of the losses that he suffered from using
1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
2 The following is a summary of the relevant facts that do
not appear to be in dispute; they are stated solely for the
purpose of deciding the pending motion, and they are not findings
of fact for this case. See Rule 1(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011