Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 U.S. 304 - United States v. Childs

United States v. Childs’s Empirical Analysis

266 U.S. 304 · 1924

Citation profile

315
cited by 315 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

112 federal appellate · 37 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 315 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Burnet v. Harmel (1932), Rodgers v. United States (1947)

112 federal appellate · 37 district · 31 state decisions

7501924193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on New Jersey v. Anderson · Lawrence E. Sexton v. Leopold Louis Dreyfus · Billings v. United States · Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William L Moore · United States Fidelity Guaranty Company Appt v. Mj Bray

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

  1. “the power that creates [an] obligation can assign the measure of its delinquency--the detriment of delay in payment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. State Ex Rel. Murphy v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · Marc Stuart Goldberg, P.C. v. City of New York (In Re Navis Realty, Inc.)
  2. “A penalty is a means of punishment; interest a means of compensation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Wilentz v. Hendrickson · Marc Stuart Goldberg, P.C. v. City of New York (In Re Navis Realty, Inc.)
  3. “clearly intended to compensate the delay in payment of the tax--the detriment of its non-payment, to be continued during the time of its non-payment--compensation, not punishment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Johnson v. United States · Marc Stuart Goldberg, P.C. v. City of New York (In Re Navis Realty, Inc.)

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.