← 219 F.2d 523 - Williams v. United States

Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

219 F.2d 523 · 1955

Citation profile

100

cited by 100 later decisions

states following

February 2002

most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably Rushing v. Commissioner (1971), Pozzi v. Commissioner (1967)

51 federal appellate · 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 26 U.S.C. § 44

Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Corliss v. Bowers · Ross v. Commissioner · United States v. Pfister

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

“The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Ingalls v. United States · Frank Cowden, Sr., and Wife Gladys Cowden, Petitioner-Respondent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Petitioner v. Frank Cowden, Sr., and Wife Gladys Cowden, Petitioner-Respondent
“that when the [purchaser's] bid was accepted, and it desired and offered to comply with it by paying the full purchase price, the taxpayers were then in constructive receipt of it, and that the self imposed limitation of the escrow device did not in fact and in law change the situation so as to make the funds any less available to, and constructively received by them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Stiles v. Commissioner · Price v. Commissioner
“without substantial limitation or restriction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Rutland v. Commissioner · Arnwine v. Commissioner

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.