Grosso v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
1,367 federal appellate · 161 district · 323 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,527 later decisions (98 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Fisher v. United States (1976), Leary v. United States (1969)
1,367 federal appellate · 161 district · 323 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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. Anthony M. Grosso, Samuel J. Grosso, Jennie B. Grosso and Joseph Pino. Anthony M. Grosso (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 4101 · 26 U.S.C. § 4401 · 26 U.S.C. § 4411 · 26 U.S.C. § 4412 · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1967)
Relies on Schmerber v. State of California · Malloy v. Hogan · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Marchetti v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
Cited together with Marchetti v. United States · Haynes v. United States · Leary v. United States · United States v. United States Coin & Currency · Shapiro 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 2,527 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must have assumed 'public aspects' which render them at least analogous to public documents.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 4411 provides that the occupational tax must be paid ‘by each person who is liable for tax under section 4401’ and by each person who receives wagers for one liable under § 4401. It might therefore be argued *hat since petitioner is entitled to claim the constitutional privilege in defense of a Prosecution for willful failure to pay the excise tax, he is thereby freed from liability for the occupational tax. We cannot accept such an argument. We do not hold today either that the excise tax is as such constitutionally impermissible, or that a Proper claim of privilege extinguishes liability for taxation; we hold only that such a claim of privilege precludes a criminal conviction pre mised on failure to pay the tax. (Emphasis supplied.)”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“selective group inherently suspect of criminal activity”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.