Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 F.2d 563 - Epstein v. United States

Epstein v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

246 F.2d 563 · 1957

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
February 1992
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 1992 · most notably Otsuki v. Commissioner (1969), 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

32019571960197019801990decided

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 Holland v. United States · Smith v. United States · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Calderon · Miles 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “evidence of a consistent pattern of underreporting large amounts of income”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * The consistent understatement of large amounts of income for a number of years is evidence of willful intent to evade. Kurnick v. Commissioner, supra, 232 F.2d 681 ; Drieborg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 225 F. 2d 216 . In Holland v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 139 , * * * the Supreme Court declared that 'evidence of a consistent pattern of underreporting large amounts of income' will support 'an inference of willfulness.'”
    2 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.