Johnson v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1956
1 federal appellate ·
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 Lucas v. Earl · Corliss v. Bowers · Burnet v. Leininger · Hegeman v. . Moon · Rands v. Commissioner
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and continues: I do hereby promise and agree for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to pay to the said Irene W. Johnson, as trustee, and her successor in interest, the sum of $2,625 per year interest upon said borrowed money for and during the natural life of [the sister concerned]. The feature which strikes the reader at once is the absence of any promise to pay the principal. Emil Weitzner, 12 B.T.A. 724 . Yet the existence of a principal debt, not merely an obligation to pay”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is a prerequisite of the deduction. Edwin M. Klein, 31 B.T.A. 910 , 918 , 919 . In both the letter and the acknowledgement there is a significant failure to include any promise to repay principal, not to mention the complete absence of a time for payment. The agreement to pay interest stands alone with no accompanying promise to repay the amount”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“acknowledges that the petitioner and her personal representatives are indebted to herself as trustee”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.