445 F. Supp. 749 - Hoffman v. Searles’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Lee v. Schweiker (1984), Waldschmidt v. CBS, INC. (1981)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 110 · 26 U.S.C. § 3101 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 43
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Flemming v. Nestor · Segal v. Rochelle · Kokoszka v. Belford · Helvering v. Davis
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In view of the dual purposes of the Bankruptcy Act to pay creditors and to afford the bankrupt a fresh start (cite omitted), an asset in the hands of the bankrupt can be taken by the Trustee to pay creditors under s 70(a)(5) if ‘it is sufficiently rooted in the pre-bankruptcy past and (not sufficiently) entangled with the bankrupt’s ability to make an unencumbered fresh start ... ’ (cite omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Goldsberry · In Re Buchanan“The normal income tax refund is an amount actually deducted from taxpayer earnings in excess of the amount required by accurate computation of the rate applied to actual income .... the earned income credit is given effect through refund, but it is not a refund of taxes previously paid ... the effect of the earned income credit legislation is to put money in the pockets of certain needy taxpayers after tax returns are filed, and not to reduce their tax burden during the tax year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Alonso“shall not be taken into account as income or receipts for purposes of determining ... eligibility ... or the amount or extent of benefits or assistance, under any Federal program or under any State or local program financed in whole or in part with Federal funds, but only if [the taxpayer] ... is a recipient of benefits or assistance under such a program for the month before the month in which such refund is made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Regan
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.