- 40 -
The undisputed facts relevant to petitioners’ motions show they
are not entitled to the benefits of the Thompson settlement.28
Absent certain narrow exceptions, discussed below, a
decision of this Court based upon the parties’ agreement to
settle a case is final. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated the
applicable principle: “There must be an end to litigation
someday, and free, calculated, deliberate choices are not to be
relieved from.” Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198
(1950) (ruling that strategic decisions not to appeal, made
during the course of litigation, which in retrospect appear to be
disadvantageous, do not provide a basis for posttrial relief).
In these cases, absent stipulation to the contrary, the
venue for an appeal is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit; its holdings culminating in Dixon V constitute
dispositive authority governing the cases of these petitioners.
That court has expounded upon the finality of judgments and
decisions not to appeal in Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 688
F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982):
28In deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to file
motion to vacate a final decision, the Court’s usual practice is
to consider the merits of the underlying (lodged) motion to
vacate decision to determine whether the moving party has alleged
sufficient facts to call into question the validity of the
decision. See Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69
T.C. 999, 1002 (1978); see also Toscano v. Commissioner, 52 T.C.
295, 296 (1969), vacated on another issue 441 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.
1971); Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-105.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011