Constantine v. Constantine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are of opinion that neither federal nor state statute makes copies of the returns privileged. Probably the best statement supporting this view is as follows: “ ‘As the District Court of Massachusetts said in Tollefsen v. Phillips [D.C.], 16 F.R.D. 348 , at page 349, in passing on the precise issue presented here: “ ‘ * * * The plaintiff asserts that federal tax returns are not reachable by court order because 26 U.S.C.A. § 55 forbids their exhibition to anyone except certain designated persons without presidential order. It is true that if the government should determine that its interests in obtaining the fullest disclosure of pertinent information by taxpayers would be furthered by preventing the use of copies of returns in court, it could so provide. Cf. United States v. Dickey, 268 U.S. 378 , 45 S.Ct. 558 , 69 L.Ed. 1006 . I do not, however, so read the statute. The purpose of § 55 appears to be to prevent wholesale revelation of confidential information to persons not determined to have a legitimate interest therein. The plaintiff, having made his earnings an issue, can scarcely say that they are confidential information in this case. “ ‘ “The incidental effect, and perhaps an intended one, of the statute is to exempt the taxing authorities from process. But this does not mean that the taxpayer himself, as plaintiff, is so exempt. “ ‘ “If the plaintiff had a complete set of books and records which showed the figures that went into his returns, no one would say that h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schriock v. Schriock

2. “[t]he fact that the returns were made jointly by appellant and his present wife [did] not alter the case. As we have undertaken to show, copies of the returns are not privileged. Whether the present wife’s income be a material issue or not, the husband’s income is a material issue. His return sheds light on that issue. The return is not made privileged or incompetent because it includes matter which may not be relevant to the issue. The records of a joint bank account wherein both husband and wife made deposits and withdrawals would be relevant to show the husband’s financial status. We do not think such joint record would be privileged or inadmissible merely because it tended also to show the wife’s financial status.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 102 Md. App. 87 - Ashton v. Cherne Contracting Corp.

3. “"The allowance in the case at bar will be considered and construed in accordance with its substance and not its mere form. If, when so considered, the effect of the decree rendered was not that of a division of property, but of an allowance of alimony payable by installments for the support of the wife and children, it may be modified. * * *" (215 Ala., at page 629, 111 So., at page 912 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DuBoise v. DuBoise