Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 U.S. 277 - Aiken v. Burnet

Aiken v. Burnet’s Empirical Analysis

282 U.S. 277 · 1931

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
January 1998
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 20 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1998 · most notably Stange v. United States (1931), Burnet v. Chicago Ry Equipment Co (1931)

61 federal appellate · 20 district ·

12801931194019501960197019801990decided

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

reviewedAiken v. Commissioner (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States · Stange v. United States · Russell v. United States · W. P. Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Burnet

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

  1. “While Section 250(d) first specified that a waiver be in writing and signed by the Commissioner, there was nothing in that section which invalidated waivers made prior to its enactment or limited the effect of such instruments on the limitations therein imposed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This contention is not sound. The limitation periods on assessment could be waived by the taxpayer in the same fashion as other statutes of limitations are waived.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “all Federal taxes imposed by the Act of Congress, approved September 8, 1916, as amended by the Act of Congress, approved October 3, 1917,”
    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.