Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 FSUPP 352 - In Re Crockett

In Re Crockett’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2016

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

401957196019701980199020002010decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 26 U.S.C. § 6321 (Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106

Relies on United States v. City of New Britain · Glass City Bank of Jeanette Pa v. United States · Lewis Trustee v. United States · United States v. Heffron · M. M. Landy, Inc. v. John Nicholas, as Receiver of Continental Charterers, Inc., Bankrupt

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under the law of California, it is clear that an individual partner may be held liable for the entire amount of a partnership debt, and under that rule, an indi vidual partner has been held liable to the United States for the employment withholding taxes of the partnership, and his individual property has been held subject to the lien of [§ 6321’s predecessor]. Hence, it is the opinion of this Court that the bankrupt is a ‘person liable to pay’ the tax asserted within the meaning of [§ 6321’s predecessor]....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether petitioner has perfected the hen it asserts against the bankrupt’s property.... [T]he hen does not attach unless and until the delinquent taxpayer ‘neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand.’ It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that these statutory prerequisites ' have been fulfilled before the Referee can treat petitioner as a hen creditor.”
    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.