Bull v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 247 · 1935
Citation profile
676 federal appellate · 172 district · 232 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,166 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969), United States v. Nordic Village, Inc. (1992)
676 federal appellate · 172 district · 232 state decisions — followed in 34 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Behan · Merritt v. United States · The Siren · United States v. State Bank
Cited together with Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co. · Stone v. White · United States v. Dalm · Lewis v. Reynolds · United States v. Bess
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 2,166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor's property to satisfy the debt.”
42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“recoupment is in the nature of a defense arising out of some feature of the transaction upon which the plaintiff's action is grounded. Such a defense is never barred by the statute of limitations so long as the main action itself is timely.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * We also agree that the sums paid his estate as profits earned after his death were not corpus, but income received by his executor and to be reckoned in computing income tax for the years 1920 and 1921. Where the effect of the contract is that the deceased partner's estate shall leave his interest in the business and the surviving partners shall acquire it by payments to the estate, the transaction is a sale, and payments made to the estate are for the account of the survivors. It results that the surviving partners are taxable upon firm profits and the estate is not. Here, however, the survivors have purchased nothing belonging to the decedent, who had made no investment in the business and owned no tangible property connected with it. * * *”
9 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.