Murray v. Comm'r’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1033 · 26 U.S.C. § 1221 · 26 U.S.C. § 1231
Relies on Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co. · Mauldin v. Commissioner · Kaltreider v. Commissioner · Bauschard v. Commissioner · Farry v. Commissioner
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * As we have already concluded, Murray was in the business of dealing in such property. Accordingly, and in the absence of any convincing proof that such items of property [i.e., Murray’s interests in the Gordon tract] were acquired and held by Murray in his role as an investor, we conclude that [the Gordon tract interests] constituted property held by him primarily for sale in the ordinary course of his business, and that the proceeds of the [sale] thereof constituted ordinary income. [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.