Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 F.2d 306 - Lesser v. United States

Lesser v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

368 F.2d 306 · 1966

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 948 - People v. McGee (1977), United States v. Rem (1994)

42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

290196619701980199020002010decided

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. § 7851

Relies on Bull v. United States · Mills v. Alabama · Stearns Co of Boston Mass v. United States · Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States · Stange v. United States

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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) General Rule. — Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over. No penalty shall be imposed under Section 6653 for any offense to which this section is applicable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The result of the rule [placing the burden of proof on the government] ... would be to encourage taxpayers to wait for the government to sue. If such a rule were adopted the tax bar would quickly move to make the task of the government more difficult by advising clients not to pay taxes under protest but, by forcing the government to collect by levy and suit, secure the advantage of shifting the burden of proof.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Where the assessment of any income tax imposed by this chapter has been made within the period of limitation properly applicable thereto, such tax may be collected by distraint or by a proceeding in court, but only if begun (1) within six years after the assessment of the tax, or (2) prior to the expiration of any period for collection agreed upon in writing by the Commissioner and the taxpayer before the expiration of such six-year period. * * * ” (emphasis added)”
    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.