United States v. Acri’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
286 federal appellate · 77 district · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 716 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc (1979), Aquilino v. United States (1960)
286 federal appellate · 77 district · 114 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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. Acri (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008)
Relies on United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank · United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc. · United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc. · People of State of Illinois Gordon v. Campbell
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 716 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The relative priority of the lien of the United States for unpaid taxes is (citing cases) always a federal question to be determined finally by the federal courts. The state’s characterization of its liens, while good for all state purposes, does not necessarily bind this Court. (Cases cited.)” (Emphasis supplied.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor until notice thereof has been filed by the Secretary or his delegate.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In argument it was pointed out that the statute of California involved in the Security Trust Case was different because California courts had held an attachment lien to be inchoate and a mere notice of a more perfect lien to come, while Ohio courts had held it to be an execution in advance and a lien perfected as of the time of attachment. This distinction is immaterial for purposes of federal law. This case is not to be distinguished from United States v. Security Trust & Sav. Bank, 340 U.S. 47 , 71 S.Ct. 111 , 95 L.Ed. 53 , and the judgment is reversed.” [ 348 U.S. 211 , 75 S.Ct. 241 .]”
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.