Choteau v. Burnet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

112 federal appellate · 18 district · 19 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 308 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The language of sections 210 and 211 (a) ( 40 Stat. 1062 ) subjects the income of ‘every individual’ to tax. Section 213 (a) ( 40 Stat. 1065 ) includes incomes ‘from any source whatever.’ The intent of Congress was to levy the tax with respect to all residents of the United States and upon all sorts of income. The act does not expressly exempt the sort of income here involved, nor a person having petitioner’s status respecting such income, and we are not referred to any other statute which does. * * * The intent to exclude must be definitely expressed, where, as here, the general language of the act laying the tax is broad enough to include the subject-matter.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Superintendent Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner · Pitman v. Commissioner

2. “His share of the royalties from oil and gas leases was payable to him, without restriction upon his use of the funds so paid. * * * In the process of gradually changing the relation between the Indian and the government he has been, with respect to the income in question, fully emancipated. (Compare United States v. Waller, supra.) It is true, as petitioner asserts, that as to his homestead he still remains a restricted Indian. But this fact is only significant as evidencing the contrast between his qualified power of disposition of that property mid his untrammeled ownership of the income in controversy. The latter was clearly heyond the control of the United States. The duty to pay it into petitioner’s hands, and his power to use it after it was so paid, were absolute. Work v. Mosier, 261 U. S. 352 ; Work v. Lynn, 266 U. S. 161 . The claim that with respect to this income the petitioner was restricted, and therefore exempt from tax laid by sections 210 and 211 (a) must fail. [Italics supplied.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pitman v. Commissioner

3. “Royalties received by the government from mineral leases of Indian lands have been held to be beyond a state’s taxing power (Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501, 42 S.Ct. 171 , 66 L.Ed. 338 [(1922)]; Shaw v. Oil Corporation, [ 276 U.S. 575 , 48 S.Ct. 333 , 72 L.Ed. 709 (1928) ] supra) on the ground that while in the possession of the United States they are a federal instrumentality, to be used to carry out a governmental purpose. It does not follow, however, that they cannot be subjected to a federal tax. The intent to exclude must be definitely expressed, where, as here, the general language of the act laying the tax is broad enough to include the subject-matter. Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co., 275 U.S. 232 , 48 S.Ct. 65 , 72 L.Ed. 256 [(1927)]; Shaw v. Oil Corporation, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Michael