Marr v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

130 federal appellate · 20 district · 15 state decisions

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

1. “(1) Has any change taken place in the corporate identity; that is, has the same corporation held and operated the same corporate property as before the reorganization? (2) Is the new corporation incorporated under the laws of the same state, or has the new charter been secured from some other state, changing the rights and powers of the corporation as to the holding of stock and the stockholder’s rights thereunder? (3) Is the new stock issued in the new corporation substantially the same, as in the old corporation, and representing the same proportional interest of the same kind as the old stock in essentially the same corporation? (4) Have or have not the business and assets of the old corporation been materially changed under the charter of the new corporation? (5) Have or have not the stockholders in the new scheme received nothing differing in substance from what the stockholders had in the old corporation — has anything been severed from their original capital interest in the old corporation?”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Petree v. United States

2. ““The government insists that .identity of the business enterprise is not conclusive; that gain in value resulting from profits is taxable as income, not only when it is represented by an interest in a different business enterprise or property, but also when it is represented by an essentially different interest in the same business enterprise or property; that, in the case at bar, the gain actually made is represented by securities with essentially different characteristics in an essentially different corporation; and that, consequently, the additional value of the new securities, although they are still held by the Marrs, is income under the rule applied in United States v. Phellis, 257 U. S. 156 , 42 S. Ct. 63 , 66 L. Ed. 180 ; Rockefeller v. United States, 257 U. S. 176 , 42 S. Ct. 68 , 66 L. Ed. 186 ; and Cullinan v. Walker, 262 U. S. 134 , 43 S. Ct. 495 , 67 L. Ed. 906 . In our opinion the government is right.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atkins' Estate v. Lucas

3. “Weiss v. Stearn did not turn upon the relatively unimportant circumstance that the new and old corporations were organized under the laws of the same State, but upon the approved definition of income from capital as something severed therefrom and received by the taxpayer for his separate use and benefit. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Standard Silica Co. v. Commissioner