Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 F.2d 1221 - Benson v. United States

Benson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

442 F.2d 1221 · 1971

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2002

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

401971198019902000decided

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. § 6672 · 28 U.S.C. § 1340

Relies on Falik v. United States · Fairclaw v. Forrest · Coleman v. Jackson · Randall E. Sebold, Sr. v. Irene H. Sebold · Heath v. Heath

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The promulgation of this statute [§ 16-910], which permits the tenancy by the entirety to continue after the dissolution of the marriage, seems a logical extension of the tenancy in recognition of the fact that a formal decree of divorce often does not dissolve interspousal support obligations. The case before us offers an appropriate example and most probably represents the rule rather than the exception. Since Travis’s responsibility to provide for his ex-wife and children outlived the divorce, the parties agreed that certain property should be set aside and devoted to the fulfillment of those obligations. The statute, by allowing them to hold that property as tenants by the entirety, guarantees that the chosen source of income cannot be depleted through unilateral alienation or attachment by creditors to satisfy the separate debts of either party. [Id. at 201, 442 F.2d at 1225 .]”
    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.