194 F. Supp. 594 - Ruby v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1980
2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 3402 · 26 U.S.C. § 6672 · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422
Relies on Flora v. United States · Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. · Raffaele v. Granger · Rothensies v. Ullman · Adler v. Nicholas
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““may pay to the Director of Internal Revenue the penalties equal to the amount of the taxes due for one or more individual employees and for each of the quarters here in question. They may then file with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a claim for refund and therein request a determination of the legality of the assessment, the amount thereof, and their liability therefor. If the claim for refund is denied there is available to the plaintiffs an adequate remedy under Section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code * * Ruby v. Mayer, 1961, D.N.J., 194 F.Supp. 594, 598 ; Heller v. Scanlon, 1961, E.D.N.Y., 196 F.Supp. 832 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Except as provided in sections 6212(a) and (c), and 6213(a), no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bolme v. Nixon
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.