Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 U.S. 136 - Burnet v. Leininger

Burnet v. Leininger’s Empirical Analysis

285 U.S. 136 · 1932

Citation profile

624
cited by 624 later decisions
50
cited 50 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

328 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 624 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Commissioner v. Sunnen (1948), Helvering v. Clifford (1940)

328 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions

25301932194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedLeininger v. Commissioner (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Cohan v. Commissioner · Lucas v. Earl · Phillips v. Commissioner · Poe v. Seaborn · Phillips v. Commissioner

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

  1. ““The respondent urges that the assignment to his wife was of one-half of the 'corpus’ of his interest and that this 'carpus’ produced the income in question. The characterization does not aid the contention." (Italics ours.)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * we think that no distinction can be taken according to the motives leading to the arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The question related to the income earned on respondent’s share in a partnership, known as the Eagle Laundry Company, doing business in Cleveland, Ohio. By virtue of an agreement made with his wife, respondent insisted that she was a full equal partner with him in his interest in the partnership and that each should return and pay tax upon one-half of the income attributable to that interest.”
    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.