Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 F.2d 441 - Strauss v. Commissioner

Strauss v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

168 F.2d 441 · 1948

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
October 1968
most recently cited

11 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Helvering v. Taylor · Lucas v. Earl · Commissioner v. Tower · Bingham's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Helvering v. Eubank

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

  1. ““ * * * The taxpayer did not receive for those services any part of the Kodachrome process itself or any right to control the disposition of that process. Rather, he obtained the enforceable promise of the owners of the process that he would be paid for his services a definite portion of the royalties they had the right to receive from the Eastman Kodak Company. That is to say, his ‘interest in the process’ was never greater than a contract right to be paid certain ascertainable sums of money. From first to last his pay for his services was to be only in money determinable in amount by reference to a royalty agreement covering the process. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “certain personal services in connection with the financing”
    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.