Putnam v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
32 F.3d 911 · 1994
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2019
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 162 · 26 U.S.C. § 262 · 26 U.S.C. § 6532 · 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 28 U.S.C. § 374 · 28 U.S.C. § 456
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers · United States v. Correll · Peurifoy v. Commissioner · Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · In re Disbarment of Sabiston
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for purposes of [section] 162, 'home' does not have its usual and ordinary meaning.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the pursuit of a trade or business. I.R.C. §§ 162(a)(2). To qualify under this provision, an expense must satisfy three conditions:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In fact, 'home'-in the usual case-means 'work.' "). We have held that the term "home”
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.