Bullock v. Latham’s Empirical Analysis
306 F.2d 45 · 1962
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Botta v. Scanlon (1963), United States v. Weintraub (1979)
12 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 United States v. Coson · Raffaele v. Granger · Rothensies v. Ullman · Tomlinson v. Smith · Long v. Rasmussen
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This section relates to taxes, argue defendants, which brings the action back again within the exception of Section 2201. The law, however, frequently does not follow the narrow path of pure logic and seldom can indulge itself in the academic certainties of syllogistic reasoning. Nor can reference be made to the provisions of any one section without the probability arising of having to reconcile it with some other section or decisional law apparently in conflict. And so here. 6 The conclusion to be gleaned from the many decisions dealing with the problem presented is succinctly stated in the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bullock v. Latham“It is unreasonable to think that a court with authority to issue a restraining order is without power to declare the rights of the parties in connection therewith. In other words, it is our view that the language which excepts federal taxes from the Declaratory Judgment Act is co-extensive with that which precludes the maintenance of a suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of a tax.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurisdiction rests upon sections 1340 and 2463 and does not come within the exception of section 2201. That exception sufficiently serves its purpose if limited to controversies involving tax liabilities of parties qua taxpayers and if not construed as foreclosing declaratory judgment relief to persons claiming an interest in property levied upon to satisfy the tax obligations of another.”
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.