Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 U.S. 218 - Helvering v. Therrell

Helvering v. Therrell’s Empirical Analysis

303 U.S. 218 · 1938

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 1985
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1985 · most notably Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe (1939)

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions

600193819401950196019701980decided

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

reviewedTherrell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell · South Carolina v. United States · Plowden Weston v. The City Council of Charleston · Indian Motocycle 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Notwithstanding discordant views which have sometimes arisen because of varying emphasis given to one or another of such circumstances, it is now settled doctrine that the inferred exemption from federal taxation does not extend to every instrumentality which a state may see fit to employ. Exemption depends upon the nature of the undertaking; it is cabined by the reason which underlies the inference.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The compensation of the taxpayers was paid from corporate assets — not from funds belonging to the state. No one of them was an officer of the state in the strict sense of that term. The business about which they were employed was not one utilized by the state in the discharge of her essential governmental duties. The corporations in liquidation were private enterprises; their funds were the property of private individuals.””
    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.