Lang v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably American Foundry v. Commissioner (1972), Caplin v. United States (1983)
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 Estate of E. W. Chism, Deceased, Clara Chism, and Clara Chism v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Haynes v. United States · Kaufman v. Commissioner · Estate of Leo P. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman, and Estate of Ida W. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Kuhn 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“amounts received under an accident or health plan for employees * * * shall be treated as amounts received through accident or health insurance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“program, policy, or custom having the effect of a plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In general, an accident or health plan is an arrangement for the payment of amounts to employees in the event of personal injuries or sickness. A plan may cover one or more employees, and there may be different plans for different employees or classes of employees. An accident or health plan may be either insured or noninsured, and it is not necessary that the plan be in writing or that the employee’s rights to benefits under the plan be enforceable. However, if the employee’s rights are not enforceable, an amount will be deemed to be received under a plan only if, on the date the employee became sick or injured, the employee was covered by a plan (or a program, policy, or custom having the effect of a plan) providing for the payment of amounts to the employee in the event of personal injuries or sickness, and notice or knowledge of such plan was reasonably available to the employee. It is immaterial who makes payment of the benefits provided by the plan. * * *”
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.