United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.2d 905 · 1953
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 1988 · most notably United States v. Alker (1958), United States v. Stayback (1954)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 26 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Spies v. United States · Hirabayashi v. United States · Shapiro v. United States · United States v. Johnson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The immunity granted by the Compulsory Testimony Act is coextensive with the protection granted by the privilege against self-incrimination. Shapiro v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 1375 , 92 L.Ed. 1787 ; Heike v. United States, 1913, 227 U.S. 131 , 33 S.Ct. 226 , 57 L.Ed. 450 . Hence, the witness becomes immune only if he could have properly refused to testify because his answers would tend to incriminate him. We fail to see how any answer could tend to incriminate when the crime presently involved was not committed or perhaps even contemplated when the answer was given. United States v. Swift, D.C.N.D.Ill.1911, 86 F. 1002 * * * ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] man who files a wilfully false return has endeavored to mislead his government. He. creates the appearance of having complied with the law * * * * * # # ' * “ ‘The crime denounced by § 145 (b) * * * is complete when the taxpayer willfully and knowingly files a false and fraudulent return with intent to defeat or evade any part of the tax due the United States.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * we would think affirmative willful attempt may be inferred from conduct such as * * * destruction of books or records, concealment of assets or covering up sources of income, handling of one’s affairs to avoid making the records usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal.””
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.