Blum v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
177 F.2d 670 · 1949
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 1995 · most notably Izrastzoff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Topping (1952), Joslin v. Commissioner (1970)
19 federal appellate ·
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 26 U.S.C. § 22 · 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on People Ex Rel. McDonough v. Jarecki
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We feel it proper to state that in our opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the obligation of petitioner, Harry Blum, to pay the designated sums to his former wife arises from the contract of February 27, 1935. And that contract was incident to and a concomitant of the decree dissolving their marital relationship. The Superior Court of Cook County adopted the contract of February 27 and reserved jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms, conditions, provisions and obligations contained in said contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Commissioner v. Blum“only for the purpose of enforcing the terms, conditions, provisions and obligations contained in said contract upon application of either of the parties hereto; and for all other purposes this decree shall be and is hereby made final, and no further jurisdiction is reserved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Commissioner v. Blum“In the case of a husband described in section 22(k), amounts includible under section 22(k) in the gross income of his [divorced] wife, payment of which is made within the husband's taxable year. * * *”
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.