United States v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
299 U.S. 498 · 1937
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 15 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 226 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Welch v. Henry (1938), Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States (1937)
78 federal appellate · 15 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Milliken v. United States · James Patton v. Maggie a Brady J D · Lynch v. Hornby
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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As respects income tax statutes, it long has been the practice of Congress to make them retroactive for relatively short periods so as to include profits from transactions consummated while the statute was in process of enactment, or within so much of the calendar year as preceded the enactment; and repeated decisions of this Court have recognized this practice and sustained it as consistent with the due process of law clause of the Constitution. ’ ’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The period of retroactivity prescribed for this taxing provision reaches backward from June 19, 1934, the date of the act, to and including May 15, 1934 — 35 days. For some months prior to this period there was strong pressure for legislation requiring increased acquisition and use of silver by the government, and several bills providing therefor were presented in the Senate and House of Representatives. On May 22 the President sent to Congress a message recommending legislation for increasing the amount of silver in our monetary stocks and further recommending the imposition of a tax of at least 50 per cent, on profits accruing from private dealing in silver. The bill which became the Silver Purchase Act was introduced May 23 in response to this message. In these circumstances we think the period of retroactivity fixed in the act is not unreasonable, but consistent with the practice sustained by this Court in the cases already cited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus a profit is made the occasion for the tax and also the measure of it.” (Italics added.)”
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.