Anniston Mfg Co v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

254 federal appellate · 56 district · 77 state decisions

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

1. ““When the Congress requires the claimant, who has paid the invalid tax, to show that he has not been reimbursed or has not shifted its burden, the provision should not be construed as demanding the performance of a task, if ultimately found to be inherently impossible, as a condition of relief to which the claimant would otherwise be entitled. There is ample room for the play of the statute within the range of possible determinations. Impossibility of proof may not be assumed. It cannot be doubted that the requirement has appropriate and valid effect in placing upon the claimant the duty to present fully all the facts pertaining to the qiuestion of the shifting of the burden of the tax and in denying relief where the facts 'justify a conclusion that the burden has been shifted from the claimant to others. * * * That is the necessary import of the provision for judicial review, giving authority to the reviewing court to modify or reverse the decision of the Board ‘if it is not in accordance with law.’ ” (Emphasis' supplied.) Again the court said: “Petitioner’s contention as to impossibility of proof is premature. Manifestly there is no impossibility so far as the production of proof of petitioner’s operations or course of business is concerned. What is meant by impossibility of proof is impossibility of determination after these facts are in. * * * For the present purpose it is sufficient to hold, and we do hold, that the petitioner may constitutionally be required to present ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vica Co. v. Commissioner

2. “The Government has not denied its obligation to refund the amounts found in the authorized proceeding to be recoverable, but has recognized that obligation. In such a case, the substitution of an exclusive remedy directly against the Government is not an invasion of constitutional right. Nor does the requirement of recourse to administrative procedure establish invalidity if legal rights are still suitably protected. The immediate question is whether the authorized proceeding affords a fair and adequate remedy. We accordingly inquire whether the prescribed procedure gives an opportunity for a full and fair hearing and determination of all questions of fact and adequately provides for the protection of the legal rights of the claimant, embracing whatever right of refund the claimant is entitled to assert under the Federal Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington International Insurance v. United States

3. ““Petitioner’s contention as to impossibility of proof is premature. Manifestly there is no impossibility so far as the production of proof of petitioner’s operations or course of business is concerned. What is meant by impossibility of proof is impossibility of determination after these facts are in. Whether or not any such impossibility of determination will exist is a question which properly should await the ascertainment of the facts. For the present purpose it is sufficient to hold, and we do hold, that the petitioner may constitutionally be required to present all the pertinent facts in the prescribed administrative proceeding and may there raise, and ultimately may present for judicial review, any legal question which may arise as the facts are developed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Helmbright v. John A. Gebelein, Inc.