Matcovich v. Anglim’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.2d 834 · 1943
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably 25 Cal. 2d 624 - California Employment Commission v. Butte County Rice Growers Ass'n (1944), 78 F. Supp. 651 - Gaulden v. Southern Pac. Co. (1948)
11 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 901 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Lucas v. Earl · Burnet v. Harmel · Griffiths v. Helvering · Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley · Anglim v. Empire Star Mines 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, we think the following from Griffiths v. Commissioner [Helvering], 308 U.S. 355, 358 , 60 S.Ct. 277, 278 , 84 L.Ed. 319 , is applicable: “ ‘ * * * Legislative words arc not inert, and derive vitality from the obvious purposes at which they are aimed * * *. Taxes cannot be escaped “by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised * * * by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.” laicas v. Earl, 281 U.S. Ill, 115, 50 S.Ct. 241 , 74 L.Ed. 731 . * * *’ “In view of the intention to tax when the control of one party over others was as great as is disclosed here, we think the license agreements should not be permitted to prevent the tax.””
2 later decisions 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.