Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 F.2d 803 - United States v. Abrams

United States v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

197 F.2d 803 · 1952

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
July 2007
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1958), United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc. United States v. Roxboro Steel Co. United States v. Wilkes Barre Carriage Co., Inc. United States v. West Pittston Iron Works, Inc (1952)

20 federal appellate · 4 district ·

220195219601970198019902000decided

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 Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States · Social Security Board v. Nierotko · Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States · Billings v. United States · Koshland v. Helvering

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

  1. ““ * * * The Government contends that administrative regulations under the Renegotiation Act providing for 6% interest, plus repeated Congressional amendments and re-enactments of the Act in the face of such regulations, makes the ■ allowance of 6% interest mandatory. This con tention is without merit because the regulations are not an administrative interpretation or construction of provisions in the Act. The Act is silent as to the allowance of interest on the recovery of excessive profits. The most that can be said for congressional re-enactment in the face of these regulations is that it indicated congressional approval of the 6% rate as an administrative guide to the courts in the allowance of interest in the absence of more controlling factors.””
    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.