Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 306 U.S. 276 - United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.

United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

306 U.S. 276 · 1939

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 1970
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1970 · most notably Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner (1958), United States v. A. S. Kreider Co. (1941)

19 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

17019391940195019601970decided

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 Lowe Bros. v. United States · United States v. Jaffray · Goodrich v. Coffin · United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.

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

  1. ““And we accept the conclusions stated in the following excerpt from its opinion: ‘ * * * It cannot be said that the certificate of over-assessment constituted an account stated between the government and the taxpayer, since the taxpayer refused to assent to the application of any part of the overpayment to a deficiency tax for 1918. To constitute an account stated there must be an agreement as to liability and the amount due. * * * ’ ””
    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.