Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 F.2d 155 - Commissioner v. Meyer

Commissioner v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

104 F.2d 155 · 1939

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
February 1998
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1998

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

501939194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 22

Relies on Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank · Phelps v. United States · United States Trust Co. of New York v. Anderson · Baltimore & O. R. v. Commissioner · Kings County Development Co. v. Commissioner

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is manifest that the word “obligations” in the statute was not intended to extend to every obligation which included the payment of interest but only to those obligations which were created in the exercise of the borrowing power. See Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84 , 55 S.Ct. 50 , 79 L.Ed. 211 (1934). But where credit is obtained in consideration for a promise to pay money in the future, together with interest on that money, there is no valid ground for making a distinction between interest paid on bonds duly issued and interest paid on notes duly delivered. In this instance the village purchased the property in part on its credit and gave its interest bearing notes for the remainder of the purchase price not paid in cash. If instead of buying the property in the first place to keep it available for purchase by the village, the taxpayer had advanced the money to the village on its notes and the village had bought the property directly there would have been a patent exercise of the borrowing power. That, too, would have been plain enough had the village sold its bonds to raise the needed money. The practical effect of what it did from the standpoint of its borrowing power was the same when it gave its interest bearing notes for property instead of for cash.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “was payable not by virtue of any contract under which credit was obtained but because required by law as part of the just compensation for what was condemned ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.