From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. MacKenzie

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 28, 1973
474 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1973)

Opinion

No. 71-1925.

March 28, 1973.

Michael K. Halley (argued), Halley Halley, Reno, Nev., John W. Diehl, Diehl Recanzone, Fallon, Nev., for defendants-appellants.

David V. Seaman, Atty. (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, Patrick L. Gray III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Russell Chapin, Chief Gen., Claims Div., Bart M. Schouweiler, U.S. Atty., Reno, Nev., Walter H. Fleischer, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Bruce R. Thompson, Judge.

Before KOELSCH and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and HARRIS, District Judge.

Honorable George B. Harris, Senior Judge, United States District Court, San Francisco, California, sitting by designation.


We adopt the opinion of the district court, reported in 322 F. Supp. 1058 (D.C. D.Nev. 1971) as the opinion of this court, and affirm the judgment.

In our view, the only real issue on appeal consisted of the trial judge's determination that the disparity between the fair market value of the real property and the sale price, reflected in the government's successful bid, was not so great as to shock the conscience and require denial of confirmation of the foreclosure sale. Thus, the sole question was, did that determination constitute an abuse of discretion? As indicated by our decision affirming the judgment, we cannot say that the answer is "yes."


Summaries of

United States v. MacKenzie

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 28, 1973
474 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1973)
Case details for

United States v. MacKenzie

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARION H. MacKENZIE ET…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 28, 1973

Citations

474 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1973)