- 2 -
T.C. 305 (1998). In remanding this case for that purpose, the
Court of Appeals stated: “We imply no view as to the result that
should be reached on remand.”1
The findings of fact are set forth in Henry v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-205 (Henry I), and are incorporated herein by
this reference.2
Fabry v. Commissioner
In Fabry v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 305 (1998) (Fabry I), the
taxpayers (the Fabrys) operated a nursery in which they grew
ornamental plants, and they developed a reputation for growing
quality plants. See id. at 306. In connection with the opera-
tion of their nursery, the Fabrys used Benlate, a fungicide, on
the plants that they grew and suffered extensive damage to those
plants, which they claimed was the result of their use of
Benlate. See id. at 307. The Fabrys sued du Pont, the manufac-
1By order of the Court, the parties filed opening and an-
swering briefs on remand in which they set forth their respective
positions on the result that we should reach on remand. In
petitioner’s opening brief on remand, petitioner proposes certain
findings of fact. Each of the findings of fact proposed in
petitioner’s opening brief on remand was proposed as a finding of
fact in the opening brief that petitioner filed after the trial
in this case (petitioner’s posttrial brief). In finding the
facts on the basis of the record in this case that are set forth
in Henry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-205, the Court care-
fully considered each of the findings of fact proposed in peti-
tioner’s posttrial brief, including those findings of fact that
are also proposed in petitioner’s opening brief on remand. On
that record, we decline to find any additional facts.
2The stipulations of fact and exhibits attached thereto are
also incorporated herein by this reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011