Fawcus Mach Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 375 · 1931
Citation profile
275 federal appellate · 42 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 684 later decisions (60 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2004 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co (1948), Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States (1933)
275 federal appellate · 42 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Anderson · United States v. Grimaud · Brewster v. Gage · United States v. Moore
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 684 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Congress might have expressly declared that taxes should be excluded from invested capital. It did not do so in section 326(a), or elsewhere in the act. The regulations were made pursuant to express authority (see section 1309 of the Revenue Act of 1918). They are valid unless unreasonable or inconsistent with the statute. United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 517-518 , 31 S.Ct. 480 , 55 L.Ed. 563 ; International R. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U.S. 506, 514 , 42 S.Ct. 179 , 66 L.Ed. 341 . They constitute contemporaneous construction by those charged with the administration of the act, are for that reason entitled to respectful consideration, and will not be overruled, except for weighty reasons. United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 , 24 L.Ed. 588 ; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 336 , 50 S.Ct. 115 , 74 L.Ed. 457 .””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The act [Revenue Act of 1918] was passed in ample time to allow the taxpayer to readjust its accounts for that year by including these taxes; and since its books were kept on an accrual basis, it was necessary that this should be done in order clearly to reflect the income for 1918.”
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.