United States v. Botefuhr’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.3d 1263 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 31 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Trujillo v. Williams (2006), Adams
16 federal appellate · 31 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6324 · 26 U.S.C. § 6502 · 26 U.S.C. § 6901
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Ashe v. Swenson
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue previously decided is identical with the one presented in the action in question, (2) the prior action has been fully adjudicated on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior adjudication, and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Pendent personal jurisdiction, like its better known cousin, supplemental [or pendent] subject matter jurisdiction, exists when a court possesses personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim, lacks an independent basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant for another claim that arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact, and then, because it possesses personal jurisdiction over the first claim, asserts personal jurisdiction over the second claim.... In essence, once a district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim, it may `piggyback' onto that claim other claims over which it lacks independent personal jurisdiction, provided that all the claims arise from the same facts as the claim over which it has proper personal jurisdiction."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if an action could be timely commenced against a donor under the provisions of § 6501 and § 6502, an action against the donee under § 6324(b) will be considered timely.”
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.