Mauch v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.2d 555 · 1940
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Stone v. Commissioner (1971), Estate of Mason v. Commissioner (1975)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
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
Relies on Helvering v. Mitchell · Helvering v. Mitchell · Tomlinson v. United States · United States v. One Dodge Sedan · Klingberg v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)heir reasoning is rather too general and not impressive, based as it is on some idea that the privilege does not apply to the creation of the relation (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A client] may object to her neighbors knowing that she has been in to consult [an attorney]. She will object much more to their knowing what she said to [the attorney]. We think the privilege must be shaped and the balance struck accordingly. The slight, though real, objection of one actual client must yield to any great interest of that body of prospective clients, the public. Such an interest appears most certainly where, as here, the claimed protection includes the attorney charged with defrauding that public. Here, [the administration of justice] requires disclosure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * To apply it to prevent normal cross-examination in such a case as the present would unnecessarily encourage deception, and defeat the purpose of cross-examination. 'The court has a right to know that the client whose secret is treasured is actual flesh and blood, and demand his identification, for the purpose, at least, of testing the statement which has been made by the attorney who places before him the shield of this privilege.' United States v. Lee, supra [C.C.] , 107 F. 702 , at page 704 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gold v. Commissioner
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.