Girard v. Gill’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 695 · 1958
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission (1963), American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. London & Edinburgh Insurance (1965)
13 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
Relies on Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Sarnoff v. Ciaglia · Manuel Rodriguez Trading Corp. v. United States · Joyce v. Gentsch
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Conflicts and ambiguities are not to be resolved on motions for summary judgment, Coe v. Riley, 5 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 538, 540 , nor is the trial court to choose between conflicting inferences, Sarkes Tar-zian, Inc. v. United States, 7 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 467, 470 . The court should not attempt to determine questions of credibility, Johnson Farm Equipment Co. v. Cook, 8 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 119 , 123; and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact should be resolved against the moving party, Sarnoff v. Ciaglia, 3 Cir., 1947, 165 F.2d 167, 168 ; Warner v. First National Bank of Minneapolis, 8 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 853, 857 , cer-tiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 927 , 77 S.Ct. 226 , 1 L.Ed.2d 162 .” Girard v. Gill, 4 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 695, 697 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiffs are estopped to maintain this action for the recovery of taxes against the defendant by virtue of the settlement which they obtained from the defendant under an agreement that the settlement in one case was to be regarded as final in all of the cases under consideration at that time, and in order to induce that settlement they promised not to sue. This promise is enforceable and they are now estopped from maintaining the action. Girard v. Gill [D.C.N.C.], 142 F. Supp. 770 , aff'd, Cir. 4, 243 F.2d 166 ; Cain v. United States, 254 F.2d ___ , [ 255 F.2d 193 ] dec'd, Cir. 8, April 29, 1958; Daugette v. Patterson, Cir. 5, 250 F.2d 753 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Girard v. Gill“each case was handled on an individual basis in that any so-called `concessions' made in any of the other cases by the Government were made on a `give and take' basis with respect to that individual case only, and in consideration of other concessions made by that particular taxpayer in that case, for the purpose of settling that case only.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Girard v. Gill
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.