In Re Bushnell’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The transactions at issue were either shams or devoid of the substance necessary for recognition for federal income tax purposes. Recognition of the claimed loss(es) in [tax year] would distort the economic reality of the entire transaction. No genuine loss occurred, the alleged loss was but one step in a series of integrated transactions and the entire transaction lacked economic reality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bushnell
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.