Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 F.2d 764 - Rassenfoss v. Commissioner

Rassenfoss v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

158 F.2d 764 · 1946

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 1983
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1983 · most notably Woodward v. Commissioner (1970), United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (1970)

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

33019461950196019701980decided

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 Welch v. Helvering · Deputy v. du Pont · Bingham's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Kornhauser v. United States · Helvering v. Winmill

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

  1. “«-x- * * Laying aside the legal question as to whether petitioner had any title to the partnership assets, it is perfectly plain, so we think, that the main and primary purpose of the suit which the petitioner defended was for an accounting and any question of title was merely incidental thereto.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Both petitioner and respondent cite a number of cases in support of their respective contentions, a study of which reveals that the line of demarcation between an `ordinary and necessary expense' as a deductible item and an expenditure incurred in defense of title to property and therefore not deductible is extremely narrow.”
    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.