Foster v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
265 F.2d 183 · 1959
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2008 · most notably United States v. Powell (1964), United States v. Arthur Young & Co. (1984)
77 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 275 · 26 U.S.C. § 6501 · 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7604 · 26 U.S.C. § 7605 · 26 U.S.C. § 911
Relies on United States v. Morton Salt Co. · Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co · Wilson v. United States · Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“might throw light upon the correctness of the taxpayer's return.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 7602. Examination of books and witnesses. For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized — * * * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The simple uncontroverted allegations of fact in the agent’s affidavit, as summarized in the foregoing text of this opinion, were enough, we hold, to support the order below. They showed that the inspection sought was in aid of an investigation properly authorized by Congress by § 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Not even the respondent itself suggested that compliance with the order would be unreasonably onerous. And surely the records sought were material and relevant to the investigation. That the foregoing considerations constitute the criteria for judicial enforcement of subpoenas issued by various administrative agencies is well established : an affirmative showing of probable cause for the administrative inquiry is not required. Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann. [Numerous citations omitted]. * * * -x- * “ * * * [T]he test of materiality and relevance in this context is, of course, not whether the records sought, when disclosed, will or will not contradict the taxpayer’s tax returns. The test, we think, is essentially the same as that for materiality with respect to grand jury investigations. Wilson v. United States, supra [ 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 ]; United States v. Morton Salt Co., supra, 338 U.S. at page 642 , 70 S.Ct. at page 363 ; Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, 327 U.S. at page 216 , 66 S.Ct. at page 509 ; Falsone v. United States, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 734 , certiorari denied 346 U.S. 864 , 74 S.Ct. 103 , 98 L.Ed. 375 ”
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.