Graham v. Goodcell’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 409 · 1931
Citation profile
174 federal appellate · 41 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 507 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Lindh v. Murphy (1997), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990)
174 federal appellate · 41 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Nichols v. Coolidge · Blodgett v. Holden · Fong Yue Ting v. United States · Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Taggart
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 507 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 2611. Collections Stayed by Claim in Abatement. If any internal-revenue tax (or any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to such tax) was, within the period of limitation properly applicable thereto, assessed prior to June 2, 1924, and if a claim in abatement was filed, with or without bond, and if the collection of any part thereof was stayed, then the payment of such part (made before or within one year after May 29, 1928) shall not be considered as an overpayment under the provisions of section 2607, relating to payments made after the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment and collection.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The tax was a valid one, and the fact that the taxpayers had been indebted to the Government for the amount which was subsequently collected is not now open to dispute. Delay in collection had followed upon the taxpayers' request for a consideration of their claim that the tax should be abated, and, in the mistaken belief on the part of the administrative authorities that the statute of limitations did not bar collection...."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a distinction is made between a bare attempt of the legislature retroactively to create liabilities for transactions which, fully consummated in the past, are deemed to leave no ground for legislative intervention, and the case of a curative statute aptly designed to remedy mistakes and defects in the administration of government where the remedy can be applied without injustice.”
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.