Elbert v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.2d 421 · 1947
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2001 · most notably Flora v. United States (1958), Dorl v. Commissioner (1974)
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Bull v. United States · Southern Pac Co v. Bogert · Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co · William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. Hutchins
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That purpose was to achieve finality in the determination by the Board of Tax Appeals (now the Tax Court) of the taxpayer’s liability for the year in suit. When notified of a deficiency, the taxpayer may litigate its legality either by appealing to the Tax Court before he pays, or by paying and thereafter bringing an action against the United States or the collector to recover any overpayment. But choice of the first alternative precludes resort to the second. It is not the decision which the Tax Court makes but the fact that the taxpayer has resorted to that court which ends his opportunity to litigate in the District Court his tax liability for the year in question. Moir v. United States, 1 Cir., 149 F.2d 455, 460 ; Brooks v. Driscoll, 3 Cir., 114 F.2d 426, 429 . Hence it is immaterial that the issue sought to be litigated in the District Court was not presented to the Tax Court, or could not have been presented because based on subsequent events. As this court recognized in Merrill v. United States, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 74 , at page 75, section 322(c) is not based on doctrines of res judicata but is in effect a statute of limitations.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the Secretary has mailed to the taxpayer a notice of deficiency ... and if the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court ... no suit by the taxpayer for the recovery of any part of the tax shall be instituted in any court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But they did not do that. They resorted to the Tax Court before they brought the present action. This brought section 322(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev.Code, § 322(c), into play.” 164 F.2d at 423 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guterman v. Scanlon
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.