Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 54




                                       - 14 -                                         

          Appeals directed this Court to consider on the merits all motions           
          of intervention filed by parties affected by Dixon II.  See id.3            
          On February 2, 1995, respondent filed a Motion for an                       
          Evidentiary Hearing.  On September 14, 1995, the Court granted              
          respondent's motion.  To effectuate the direction of the Court of           
          Appeals regarding intervention, the Court ordered that the cases            
          of 10 nontest case petitioners, the majority of whom had                    
          previously signed piggyback agreements, be consolidated with the            
          remaining test cases for purposes of the evidentiary hearing.4              
          As a result, three groups of petitioners have participated in all           
          subsequent phases of the evidentiary hearing:  Test case and                
          nontest case petitioners represented by Mr. Izen; nontest case              
          petitioners represented by Mr. Jones; and nontest case                      
          petitioners represented by Mr. Sticht.5  The positions taken by             


          3  The appellate panel in DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d                 
          105, 107 (9th Cir. 1994), vacating and remanding per curiam Dixon           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-614, 62 T.C.M. (CCH) 1440, 1991            
          T.C.M. (RIA) par. 91,614 (Dixon II), issued an order stating that           
          the panel would retain jurisdiction over any subsequent appeal.             
          4  On June 13, 1995, test case petitioner Mr. Rina conceded                 
          his case in full, resulting in entry of a stipulated decision in            
          docket No. 17640-83 that was identical with the decision                    
          originally entered in that case on the basis of the Court's                 
          opinion in Dixon II.                                                        
          5  The group of cases that were consolidated for purposes of                
          the evidentiary hearing initially included the case of William D.           
          and Karen S. Booth, docket No. 28950-88, in which Declan J.                 
          O'Donnell (Mr. O'Donnell) had entered his appearance.  However,             
          at the start of the evidentiary hearing, the Court granted                  
          Mr. O'Donnell's motion to sever the Booth case from the cases               
          consolidated for the evidentiary hearing.  Mr. O'Donnell argued             
          that, in light of the theory underlying a Motion for Summary                
          Judgment that he had filed on behalf of the Booths, they had no             
                                                             (continued...)           

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011