White v. Aronson’s Empirical Analysis
302 U.S. 16 · 1937
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2009 · most notably Hassett v. Welch (1938), Roberson v. United States (1957)
50 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gould v. Gould · Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Lederer · Baltimore Talking Board Co. v. Miles · Mills Novelty 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““21: The plaintiff has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the articles with respect to which the taxes were imposed were not games or parts of games within the meaning of Section 609 of the Revenue Act of 1932. “22. The plaintiff has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it has secured from the ultimate purchasers of the articles with respect to which the taxes were imposed, or filed with the Commissioner the written consents of such ultimate purchasers to refund of the taxes herein sought to be recovered. “23. The punch boards, punch cards and other products so manufactured and sold by plaintiff are primarily designed and intended for use in playing a game within the meaning of Section 609 of the Revenue Act of 1932.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The section is headed ‘Tax on Sporting Goods.’ The articles or instrumentalities there specifically named are sporting goods whether they are used in connection with games or in some recreation or diversion other than a game. But the larger portion of the articles specifically named are all used in games of contest between two or more persons, -and the question of construction is whether the articles or instrumentalities intended to be covered by the phrase ‘games and parts of games’ mean articles or instrumentalities used in games of contest like the specific articles previously named in the section, which are used in games of tennis, polo, baseball, etc., all of which involve a contest. “We think this question requires an affirmative answer and that the words ‘games and parts of games’ bring into the list of taxables only such other articles as are used in games of contest, the same as those particularly named are and with which they are closely associated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Feitler v. Harrison“The words “games and parts of games” bring into, the list of taxables only such other articles as are used in games of contest, the same as those particularly named are and with which they are closely associated.”
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.