Washington v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 3 · 1968
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2011 · most notably United States v. Rodgers (1983), United States v. Overman (1970)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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 26 U.S.C. § 4401 · 26 U.S.C. § 4411 · 26 U.S.C. § 6653 · 26 U.S.C. § 7403
Relies on Marchetti v. United States · Grosso v. United States · Aquilino v. United States · United States v. Bess
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The carefully circumscribed [Marchetti-Grosso] holding is that a defendant may not be convicted of a criminal violation of the wagering tax laws if he has properly claimed his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” (Emphasis in original.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * vVe emphasize that we do not hold that these wagering tax provisions are as such constitutionally impermissible; we hold only that those who properly assert the constitutional privilege as to these provisions may not be criminally punished for failure to comply with these requirements.””
2 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 hable under §4401. It. might therefore be argued that 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 premised on failure to pay the tax. [Id. at 69-70, n. 7.]”
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.