Josephine C. Toscano AKA Josephine C. Zelasko v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Coulson v. Coulson (1983), Abatti v. Commissioner (1988)
58 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Central District Court)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7481
Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · United States v. Throckmorton · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · Marshall v. Holmes
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication. Fraud, inter partes , without more, should not be a fraud upon the court * * *”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.'”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments. This is not simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury. Here, even if we consider nothing but Hartford's sworn admissions, we find a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals. Cf. Marshall v. Holmes, supra . Proof of the scheme, and of its complete success up to date, is conclusive. Cf. United States v. Throckmorton, supra . And no equities have intervened through transfer of the fraudulently procured patent or judgment to an innocent purchaser. Cf. Ibid; Hopkins v. Hebard, [1914] 235 U.S. 287 [ 35 S.Ct. 26 , 59 L.Ed. 232 ]."”
4 later decisions 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.