Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 F.2d 79 - De Masters v. Arend

De Masters v. Arend’s Empirical Analysis

313 F.2d 79 · 1963

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Powell (1964), United States v. Wilson (1974)

66 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

500196319701980199020002010decided

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. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7605

Relies on Jones v. United States · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · United States v. Morton Salt Co. · Leedom v. Kyne · Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““These grants of power [Section 7601 and 7602, supra] are to be liberally construed in recognition of the vital public purposes which they serve [citing Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734 , 742 (5th Cir. 1953)]; the exception stated in Section 7605(b) is not to be read so broadly as to defeat them [citing Application of the United States, 246 F.2d 762 , 765 (2nd Cir. 1957)]. A limited construction of Section 7605(b) is also supported by the law’s general antipathy to the erection of barriers to the ascertainment of truth [citing Application of Magnus, 299 F.2d 335 , 337 (2nd Cir. 1962), McMann v. SEC, 87 F.2d 377 (2nd Cir. 1937)], and the policy against judicial intervention in the investigative stage of tax matters because of the danger of undue delay in the collection of the revenues [citing Enochs v. William Packing Co., 370 U.S. 1 , 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125 , 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962)].””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return . . . determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax . . . or collecting any such liability,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “are to be liberally construed in recognition of the vital public purposes which they serve; the exception stated in Section 7605(b) is not to be read so broadly as to defeat them. A limited construction of Section 7605(b) is also supported by the law’s general antipathy to the erection of barriers to the ascertainment of truth, and the policy against judicial intervention of the investigative stage of tax matters because of the danger of undue delay in the collection of the revenues. [De Masters v. Arend, supra at 87 ; fn. refs, omitted.]”
    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.