- 9 -
Thompson and Cravens cases had no material effect on the Court’s
Dixon II opinion as it related to Rina.
On July 22, 1992, Izen filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s order denying respondent’s motion to vacate the
decision in the Rina case. By order dated August 4, 1992, the
Court denied Izen’s motion for reconsideration.5
On July 16, 1992, DeCastro had filed a motion for entry of
decision in favor of the Thompsons in accordance with the terms
of their settlement with respondent. Respondent’s motion for
entry of decision and supporting memorandum in opposition to
DeCastro’s motion for entry of decision disclosed to the Court
the facts that had been uncovered in respondent’s investigation.
These included the fact that the purpose and effect of the
Thompson settlement was to provide refunds to the Thompsons that
were used to pay DeCastro’s attorney’s fees to represent the
Thompsons as consideration for staying in the test case array and
Mr. Thompson’s testifying at the test case trial. The Court
entered decisions in favor of the Thompsons and the Cravenses in
accordance with their settlements but allowed the adverse
decisions against other test case petitioners to stand.
Thereafter, Izen and Robert Patrick Sticht (Sticht), on
5Rina appealed this denial. Unlike the Thompsons and the
Cravenses, Rina had no settlement agreement with respondent’s
trial attorney. On June 13, 1995, Rina agreed to the entry of a
stipulated decision in the amounts originally determined in his
statutory notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011