Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 U.S. 1 - Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co.

Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co.’s Empirical Analysis

285 U.S. 1 · 1932

Citation profile

413
cited by 413 later decisions
30
cited 30 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

176 federal appellate · 18 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 413 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Sanford's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1939)

176 federal appellate · 18 district · 16 state decisions

7401932194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedCommissioner v. Chicago Portrait Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Wayman v. Southard · De Lima v. Bidwell · Lewis v. Reynolds

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

  1. “as meaning a foreign state with the rights and responsibilities under international law of a member of the family of nations. This apparently is what the court had in mind when Judge Hand said in the Man case in referring to deportation of a Chinese alien to the mainland under the third priority,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he primary design of the [foreign tax credit] provision was to mitigate the evil of double taxation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““For the purposes of this section a domestic corporation which owns a majority of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends (not deductible under section 23 [p]) in any taxable year shall be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war-profits, or excess-profits taxes paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States, upon or with respect to the accumulated profits of such foreign corporation from which such dividends were paid, which the amount of such dividends bears to the amount of such accumulated profits * * * »”
    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.