Green v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2020
1 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. § 104 · 26 U.S.C. § 451 · 26 U.S.C. § 6103 · 26 U.S.C. § 6212 · 26 U.S.C. § 6213 · 26 U.S.C. § 6501 · 5 U.S.C. § 8147 · 5 U.S.C. § 8348
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · Badaracco v. Commissioner · United States v. International Building Co. · Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering · Beard v. Comm'r
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel ... promotes the interests of judicial economy by treating specific issues of fact or law that are validly and necessarily determined between two parties as final and conclusive. Issue preclusion is appropriate only if the following four conditions are met. First, the issue under consideration in a subsequent action must be identical to the issue litigated in the prior action. Second, the issue must have been fully and vigorously litigated in the prior action. Third, the issue must have been necessary to support the judgment in the prior case. Fourth, there must be no special circumstance that would render preclusion inappropriate or unfair. If these conditions are satisfied, issue preclusion prohibits a party from seeking another determination of the litigated issue in the subsequent action.”
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.