United States v. McElvain’s Empirical Analysis
272 U.S. 633 · 1926
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 21 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Braverman v. United States (1942), United States v. Scharton (1932)
62 federal appellate · 21 district · 12 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 Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · United States v. William Rabinowich · Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan · Wayman v. Southard · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Washington ex rel. Atkinson
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The language of the proviso cannot reasonably be read to include all conspiracies defined by section 37 [because the proviso contains the words ‘whether by conspiracy or not’ which establishes that it is the substantive offense or the object of the conspiracy which determines the scope of the proviso]. * * * [0]bviously it [the proviso] would be limited to those [conspiracies] to commit the substantive offenses which it [the main part] covers” or, in the language of the proviso, which it “involves”. The substantive offense to the conspiracy charged in the McElvain case is not covered or involved in the main part but by specific language it is excluded therefrom. But no “distinct” offense of conspiracy is excluded from coverage of the main part. It follows that the offense charged is within the terms of the main part and not within the excepting part — the proviso. All the rest of the opinion is intended to explain the reasonableness of the decision and the evident intent of Congress but, unfortunately, rather acts to confuse. See note 13a .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under existing law, the limitation on prosecutions for offenses arising under the internal revenue laws is three years, except that in the case of offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States the period is six years. The Supreme Court has recently held that under existing law the offense of attempting to defeat and evade income taxes does not nec essarily involve the defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States, fraud not being an esssential ingredient of such offense, and that therefore the 3-year limitation period is applicable instead of the 6-year limitation period. This amendment prescribes a 6-year period in the case of the offense of willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat any income tax or the payment thereof or the offense of willfully aiding or assisting in the preparation or presentation of false claims, documents, or returns. A 6-year period is also prescribed in the case of conspiracy to attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof * *.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States or any agency thereof whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner * * *.””
1 later decision 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.