Mackey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
411 F.2d 504 · 1969
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 4401 · 26 U.S.C. § 4411 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Stovall v. Denno · Jackson v. Denno · Holland v. United States · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the defendant was charged not with failure to file the returns, nor even of a crime of gambling, but of evasion of income taxes. The purpose of the rule of Marchetti and Grosso has no application to warrant retroactivity here. Its object was to protect the individual against self-incrimination under the ‘comprehensive system of federal and state prohibitions against wagering activities * * * > Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 , 48, 88 S.Ct. 697 , 703, [ 19 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968)” ( 411 F.2d at 509 ).”
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.