F. W. Fitch Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
323 U.S. 582 · 1945
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Tenney Engineering, Inc. v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers (1953), Reading & Bates Corp. v. United States (1998)
51 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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
reviewedUnited States v. F. W. Fitch Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 3401 (Tax Adjustment Act of 1966)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Smith v. Davis · Campana Corp. v. Harrison · Campana Corp. v. Harrison
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 3441. Sale Price. (a) In determining, for the purposes of this chapter, the price for which an article is sold, * * * [a] transportation, delivery, insurance, installation, or other charge * * * shall be excluded from the price only if the amount thereof is established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, in accordance with the regulations.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * discrimination, to the extent that it may exist, is an unavoidable consequence of an excise tax based on the wholesale selling price. Such cost factors as labor, materials and advertising naturally vary among competing manufacturers; different costs and different methods of doing business in turn may cause the wholesale selling prices to lack uniformity. And if these prices are taxed without adjustment for differing cost factors, tax inequalities and discriminations inevitably result. But where, as here, a flat tax is placed on the wholesale selling prices and no statutory provisions are made for relief from the resulting natural tax inequalities, courts are powerless to supply it themselves by imputing to Congress an unexpressed intent to achieve tax uniformity * * (Emphasis supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * Section 619(a) was designed to lay down specific rules for determining this selling price, especially in relation to costs incurred after the article itself had been manufactured. It provides for the use of the manufacturer’s or producer’s f. o. b. price at the factory or place of production. In essence, all manufacturing and other charges incurred prior to the actual shipment of an article and reflected separately or otherwise in the f. o. b. wholesale price are to be included in the sale price underlying the tax, while all charges incurred subsequent thereto are to be excluded. Hence any additional charge which a purchaser would not be required to pay if he accepted delivery of the article at the factory or place of production may be so excluded.””
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.