Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 10

                                        - 10 -                                        
          to appeal under section 7482(a)(2) (i.e., applications for                  
          interlocutory review).                                                      
               By order dated August 30, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied            
          the Jones petitioners’ initial applications for interlocutory               
          review as untimely.  In a subsequent order addressing a motion              
          for reconsideration by the Jones petitioners, the Court of                  
          Appeals suggested that they request the Tax Court to recertify              
          their cases for interlocutory appeal.  They did so, and we                  
          recertified the cases by order dated January 23, 2001.  The Court           
          of Appeals granted the Jones petitioners’ ensuing applications              
          for interlocutory review on March 20, 2001, and ultimately                  
          assigned docket Nos. 01-70638, 01-70639, 01-70640, and 01-70641             
          to their cases.                                                             
               On January 30, 2001, the Court of Appeals assigned docket              
          No. 01-70155 to the Adair et al. matter (hereafter, the Adair               
          appeal).  On March 22, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued an order           
          to show cause why the Adair appeal should not be dismissed for              
          lack of jurisdiction.  Describing Izen’s initial filing as                  
          “confusing in several respects”, the Court of Appeals apparently            
          surmised that Izen was attempting to establish the right of                 
          nontest case petitioners to appeal the decisions in the test                
          cases (in their self-proclaimed capacity as “intervenors”) rather           
          than seeking permission to appeal the orders this Court had                 
          certified for interlocutory appeal.  On the same day, the Court             

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