Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 F.2d 790 - Haskell v. United States

Haskell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

241 F.2d 790 · 1957

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Edwards v. Valdez (1986), United States v. Wainwright (1969)

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1701957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co · United States v. Murdock · Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co · International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Fawcus Mach Co v. United States

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

  1. ““Considered in that manner, the instructions made it crystal clear to the jury that the elements of the offense laid in the indictment which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt were that the defendant was required to file an income tax return for the year 1951; that he did not file a return on or before September 15, 1952; and that his failure to file such a return was purposeful, deliberate and intentional and not accidental, inadvertent, or negligent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ T instruct you that the only bad purpose or bad motive, which it is necessary for the Government to prove in this case is the deliberate intention not to file returns which the defendant knew ought to have been filed, so that the Government would not know the extent of the liability.’ ””
    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.