Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 U.S. 267 - M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States

M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

305 U.S. 267 · 1938

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Helvering v. Bruun (1940), Roberts v. Commissioner (1949)

86 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

530193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Eisner v. Macomber · Olson v. United States · Simpson v. Shepard · Lucas v. American Code Co. · United States v. Wells

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

  1. “It may be assumed that, subject to tbe lease, lessor became owner of tbe improvements at tbe time they were made. But it bad no right to use or dispose of tbem during tbe term. Mere acquisition of that sort did not amount to contemporaneous realization of gain witbin tbe meaning of tbe statute.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Even when required, improvements by lessee will not be deemed rent unless intention that they shall be is plainly disclosed.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Granting that the improvements increased the value of the building, that enhancement is not realized income of lessor. 7 So far as concerns taxable income, the value of the improvements is not distinguishable from excess, if any there may be, of value over cost of improvements made by lessor. Each was an addition to capital; not income within the meaning of the statute. 8 Treasury Regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress. 9”
    2 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.