Poe v. Seaborn’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 101 · 1930
Citation profile
403 federal appellate · 36 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,042 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Burnet v. Harmel (1932), Morgan v. Commissioner (1940)
403 federal appellate · 36 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Lucas v. Earl · Corliss v. Bowers · Knowlton v. Moore · Edye v. Robertson
Cited together with Goodell v. Koch · Bender v. Pfaff · Hopkins v. Bacon · Lucas v. Earl · Burnet v. Harmel
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 1,042 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]ifferences of state law, which may bring a person within or without the category designated by Congress as taxable, may not be read into the Revenue Act to spell out a lack of uniformity.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the earnings [of the husband] are never the property of the husband, but that of the [marital] community.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “ * * * The community must act through an agent. This Court has said with respect to the community property system (Warburton v. White, 176 U.S. 494 , 20 S. Ct. 404, 408 , 44 L.Ed. 555 ) that 'property acquired during marriage with community funds became an acquet of the community and not the sole property oí the one in whose name the property was bought, although by the law existing at the time the husband was given the management, control, and power of sale of such property. This right being vested in him, not because he was the exclusive owner, but because by law he was created the agent of the community.’ “In that case, it was held that such agency of the husband was neither a contract nor a property right vested in him, and that it was competent to the legislature which created the relation to alter it, to confer the agency on the wife alone, or to confer a joint agency on both spouses, if it saw fit — all without infringing any property right of the husband: See, also, Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311 , at page 319, 31 S.Ct. 425 , 55 L.Ed. 477 . “ * * * The obligations oif the husband as agent of the community are no less real because the policy of the State limits the wife’s ftght to call him to account in a court. * * * The law’s investiture of the husband with broad powers, by no means negatives the wife’s present interest as a co-owner.””
3 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.