Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 398 F.2d 558 - Taglianetti v. United States

Taglianetti v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

398 F.2d 558 · 1968

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2011 · most notably Beckwith v. United States (1976), Petzoldt v. Commissioner (1989)

64 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

560196819701980199020002010decided

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

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7201

Relies on Holland v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Dennis v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Mathis 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “as long as the proof * * * makes clear the extent of any contribution which beginning resources or a diminution of resources over time could have made to expenditures.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “against the taxpayer who consumes his self-determined tax free dollars during the year and winds up no wealthier than before.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an essential condition in cases of this type is the establishment, with reasonable certainty, of an opening net worth, to serve as a starting point from which to calculate future increases in the taxpayer’s assets. The importance of accuracy in this figure is immediately apparent, as the correctness of the result depends entirely upon the inclusion in this sum of all assets on hand at the outset. * * *”
    4 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.