Singleton Et Ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Watt v. Alaska (1981), Frank v. United States (1992)
21 federal appellate · 22 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
Relies on Brown v. Allen · Frank Lyon Co. v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating and Milling Company · Helvering v. Lazarus · Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari ... carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“This Court now declines to review the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. The sole significance of such denial of a petition for writ of certiorari need not be elucidated to those versed in the Court's procedures. It simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court as a matter `of sound judicial discretion.' Rule 38, paragraph 5. A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result. This is especially true of petitions for review on writ of certiorari to a State court.... Pertinent considerations of judicial policy here come into play. A case may raise an important question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts. Wise adjudication has its own time for ripening.... "Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.