United States v. Leslie Salt Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
161 federal appellate · 34 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 375 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United States (1979), Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P G Lake (1958)
161 federal appellate · 34 district · 27 state decisions
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. Leslie Salt Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Brewster v. Gage · Fawcus Mach Co v. United States · United States v. Isham
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 375 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * administrative practice, consistent and generally unchallenged, will not be overturned except for very cogent reasons if the scope of the command is indefinite and doubtful. [citing cases] The practice has peculiar weight when it involves a contemporaneous construction of a statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion, of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet untried and new.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These taxes are based not upon the nature of the transaction involved, but upon the character of the instruments employed. As long ago as 1873, this Court said: ‘The liability of an instrument to a stainp duty, as well as the amount of such duty, is determined by the form and face of the instrument, and cannot be affected by proof of facts outside of the instrument itself.’ United States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496 , 504, 21 L.Ed. 728 .””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . Against the Treasury's prior longstanding and consistent administrative interpretation its more recent Ad hoc contention as to how the statute should be construed cannot stand. Moreover, that original interpretation has had both express and implied congressional acquiescence, . . . .”
3 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.