Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 F.2d 609 - Coates v. United States

Coates v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

111 F.2d 609 · 1940

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2017
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Flora v. United States (1960), Flora v. United States (1958)

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

8019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell · Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe · Register v. Commissioner · Ewart v. Commissioner · Burges 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendant urges that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the suit because the plaintiff, it is said,, had not paid the entire tax for 1932 when he brought suit. The point did not impress the district judge and does not impress us. The contention that only a part of the 1932 tax had been paid when the action was brought involves the merits, not the jurisdiction. If the plaintiff’s view as to the compensation received from the villages was sound, he had paid the entire tax and more when he started his action. It is pressing technicality beyond all bounds to say that a taxpayer who has made a return on an excessive basis and' has paid installments which are more than the correct amount of tax before discovering his error, must pay the remaining installments indicated by the incorrect return on pain of losing his remedy to recover the overpayment. The proposition has neither reason nor authority in its favor. We reject the jurisdictional point and pass on to the merits.””
    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.