Jones v. Trapp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “The additional facts relied upon in the instant case' as justifying a different result in tax liability for the two years, consist of letters written by the taxpayer to a bank in 1911 in connection with his application for credit, and Mrs. Trapp’s testimony concerning their business relationship through the years. One of the letters to the bank recited that the Trapps were trying to get into the municipal bond business; that Mrs. Trapp was interested in the business, and was furnishing her own separate collateral as security for the proposed loan with which to engage in business. But these facts are historical and were available in the former trial. “No new facts were tendered in this case which did not exist and were not available for production in the former case. The applicable and controlling facts remain the same — they are static, immutable, and therefore precisely identical for the purposes of estoppel.” * * * [Emphasis supplied.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stanback v. Commissioner · 582 F. Supp. 993 - Joe Esco South-West Tire Co. v. United States

2. ““Suffice it to say that under the law of Texas, oil and gas in place is realty, and its removal and sale amounts to a depletion of that part of the corpus. Stephens v. Stephens, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 290 . And, since the proceeds from the sale of the oil represents a sale of a part of the realty, the income therefrom is separate income of the owner. Commissioner v. Wilson, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 766 ; Welder v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 583 ; Merten’s, Vol. 3, Sec. 19.16, p. 34. Cf. Commissioner v. Gray, 5 Cir., 159 F. 2d 834 ; United States v. Harang, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 106 . There is nothing on this record to indicate what, if any, of the reported income is attributable to the community labor, skill and talent. We therefore have no occasion to consider whether the separate income became unidentifiably commingled with community income. See McFaddin v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 570 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norris v. Vaughan