United States v. Schiff’s Empirical Analysis
379 F.3d 621 · 2004
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. (2009), State v. Azar (2018)
11 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Brandenburg v. Ohio · City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. · Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the new works were primarily expressive, and, to the extent they included commercial aspects, the commercial speech was `inextricably intertwined' with the expressive speech and could not be enjoined.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. During the pendency of this action, the Defendant is enjoined, both directly and indirectly, from acting as a federal income tax return preparer; 2. During the pendency of this action, the Defendant is enjoined directly and indirectly from engaging in any conduct subject to penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 & 6695; 3. During the pendency of this action, the Defendant is enjoined directly and indirectly from engaging in any conduct that interferes with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws and/or engaging in conduct subject to penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6701 ; 4. The Defendant is required to provide to the United States on or before 15 days from entry of this Order a list of the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of all individuals or entities for whom the De fendant has prepared or assisted in the preparation of tax-related documents, including claims for refund or tax returns since January 1, 2000.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. It shows you how to file the zero return, stop your wage withholding, and explains the basics. 36 After you file the zero return, you'll want to get the Schiff Reports, Series 5 and Series 6. These hold all of the latest research and applications, and they include a response letter for every letter the IRS sends out. 37 Also the Schiff Report Series tapes cover State income tax returns and amended returns if you are considering going back 3 years on claims for refunds. You'll enjoy this very much! 38 A good”
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.