Lynn v. West’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.3d 582 · 1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Doe v. Kidd (2007), Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee (2009)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 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 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Steffel v. Thompson · Leary v. United States
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in this Article may in any manner provide immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who possesses an illegal substance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“enough positive features that its nature is that of a criminal penalty, not a civil tax.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the [d]rug [t]ax contains no features that allow us to distinguish Kurth Ranch. The rate of taxation is even steeper than the tax in Kurth Ranch. Unlike the application of a normal income tax on illegal activity, the [d]rug [t]ax is enforced only against criminals.... [T]he [d]rug [t]ax does not contemplate lawful dealings in the product that is the subject of the tax. The [d]rug [t]ax singles out a class of persons who have engaged in criminal activity and subjects the class to a rate of taxation far beyond that faced by any legitimate taxpayer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Nivens v. Gilchrist
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.