Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co.’s Empirical Analysis
273 U.S. 346 · 1927
Citation profile
176 federal appellate · 96 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 478 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Guaranty Trust Co of New York v. United States (1938), Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. (1932)
176 federal appellate · 96 district · 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis · Shwab v. Doyle
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 478 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Sec. 277. (a) Except as provided in section 278 and in subdivision (b) of section 274 and in subdivision (b) of section 279 — ■ “(1) Tbe amount of income, excess-profits, and war-profits taxes imposed by the Revenue Act of 1921, and by such Act as amended, for the taxable year 1921 and succeeding taxable years, and the amount of income taxes imposed by this Act, shall be assessed within four years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period. “(2) The amount of income, excess-profits, and war-profits taxes imposed by the Act entitled ‘An act to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes,’ approved August 5, 1909, the Act entitled ‘An Act to reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,’ approved October 3, 1913, the Revenue Act of 1916, the Revenue Act of 1917, the Revenue Act of 1918, and by any such Act as amended, shall be assessed within five years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period. * * * ” 26 USCA § 1057 note. “Sec. 278 * * * (c) Where both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have consented in writing to the assessment of the tax after the time prescribed in section 277 for its assessment the tax may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upo”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There are two methods to compel payment. One is suit, a judicial proceeding; the other is distraint, an executive proceeding. The word ‘proceeding’ is aptly and commonly used to comprehend steps taken in pursuit of either. There is nothing in the language or context that indicates an intention to restrict its meaning, or to use ‘suit’ and ‘proceeding’ synonymously. “The purpose of the enactment was to fix a time beyond which steps to enforce collection might not be initiated. The repose intended would not be attained if suits only were barred, leaving the collector free at any time to proceed by distraint.” ■ (Italics supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rests upon the general principle of policy applicable to all governments that the public interest should not be prejudiced by the default or negligence of public officers.”
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.