Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 BR 186 - In Re Simms

In Re Simms’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
October 2002
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Woburn Associates v. Kahn (1992), United States v. Kolstad (1991)

120198419902000decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 507 · 26 U.S.C. § 6502

Relies on First National Bank of Mobile v. Everhart · Perry v. Certificate Holders of Thrift Savings · Carnegia v. Georgia Higher Education Assistance Corp. · Pepperland, Inc. v. Westgate-California Corp.

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

  1. “The question presented is whether, under the standard set forth in International Horizons, these latter claims for federal income taxes should relate back to the original, timely-filed claim for federal income taxes. In other words, the Court must determine whether each untimely claim for federal income taxes constitutes “an amendment which merely states more specifically certain allegations with respect to the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading” or, on the other hand, “states a new claim based upon a different set of facts or circumstances.” In re International Horizons, Inc., supra. Although the untimely-filed [amended claim] asserted federal income tax liability for different years than were asserted in the timely-filed [claim], the Court con-eludes that [the amended claim] should relate back to the time [the timely-filed claim] was filed. A number of factors weigh in favor of this result. First, the Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan proposed to pay in full all priority tax claims. Secondly, the Debtor did not file a tax return for the years 1977 through 1980 until late in 1981. Finally, the timely-filed claim for federal income taxes indicated an intent on the part of the IRS to hold the Debtor liable for past-due federal income taxes and pre-petition interest thereon.”
    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.