Bulova Watch Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
162 federal appellate · 21 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 457 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Morton v. Mancari (1974), Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980)
162 federal appellate · 21 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6611 · 28 U.S.C. § 2411
Relies on Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation · Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States · D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin · Libson Shops, Inc., v. Koehler, District Director of Internal Revenue
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 457 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is a familiar law that a specific statute controls over a general one 'without regard to priority of enactment.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress has made the starting date of interest in such cases dependent upon the forum selected by the taxpayer. [Plaintiff's] argument would mean in fact, it frankly proceeds on the theory that a taxpayer, holding a refund claim attributable to an unused excess profits credit, could, by proceeding in a District Court or the Court of Claims, recover interest from the date when a claim for refund could have been filed, yet if he proceeded through the Tax Court he could not recover interest for any period prior to the actual filing of his claim, even though the Tax Court's final judgments (or orders) are subject to review by the United States Courts of Appeals and ultimately by this Court. In the light of the provisions of § 3771(e) and its legislative history, it is almost certain that Congress did not intend such an anomalous, nonuniform and discriminatory result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) No interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment by the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) In any judgment of any court rendered after the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926 (whether against the United States, a collector or deputy collector of internal revenue, a former collector or- deputy collector, or the personal representative in case of death) for any internal-revenue tax erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or for any penalty collected without authority or for any sum which was excessive or in any manner wronyfully collected, under the internal-revenue laws, interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6 per centum per annum upon the amount of such tax, penalty, or sum, from the date of the payment or collection thereof to the date of entry of such judgment or, if such judgment is reviewed by an appellate court, to the date of entry of final judgment.”
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.