Continental Tie & Lumber Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
286 U.S. 290 · 1932
Citation profile
203 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 427 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011 · most notably Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Commissioner (1944), Brown v. Helvering (1934)
203 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions
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 · Lucas v. American Code Co. · Texas Ry Co v. United States
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 427 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * income may not be deferred after the right matures, even although the ministerial act of computing the amount occurs in the subsequent year, and this although the administrative procedure to ascertain the amount to be paid is that of a public commission.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the taxpayer had in its own books and accounts data to which it could apply the calculations required by the statute and ascertain the quantum of the award within reasonable limits.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Obviously the data had to be obtained from the railway’s books and accounts and from entries therein all made prior to March 1, 1920. These accounts contained all the information that could ever be available touching relevant expenditures. Compare United States v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 422 [ 46 S.Ct. 131 , 70 L.Ed. 347 ]. The petitioner was promptly informed by the terms of § 209, as supplemented by the instructions issued by the Commission, of the method to be followed in allocating charges to operation during periods under inquiry. It does not appear that a proper effort would not have obtained a result approximately in accord with what the Commission ultimately found.””
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.