Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 F.2d 191 - Heiner v. Crosby

Heiner v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis

24 F.2d 191 · 1928

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. (1936), The Central Trust Company and Albert E. Heekin, Jr., Co-Executors of the Estate of Albert E. Heekin, Deceased v. The United States. Katharine Heekin Herrlinger, James R. Heekin, Jr., and the Central Trust Company, Executors Under the Will of James J. Heekin, Deceased v. The United States. The Central Trust Company, Successor and Trustee Under the Will of Alma R. Heekin, Deceased v. The United States (1962)

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

1801928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · Boom Company v. Patterson · Walter v. Duffy · North American Telegraph Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. · Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

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

  1. “Sales made at a particular time and. place may be significant, but the price paid is not necessarily decisive of fair market price or value. The fact of sales, in itself and without regard to the circumstances under which the sales were made, does not conclusively establish either statutory fair market price or value. Sales made under peculiar and unusual circumstances, such as sales of small lots, forced sales, and sales in a restricted market, may neither signify a fair market price or value, nor serve as the basis on which to determine the amount of gain derived from the sale.”
    4 later decisions 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.