BECKER Et Al. v. UNITED STATES Et Al.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Cardenas (1989), State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl (2000)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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 26 U.S.C. § 7402 · 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7606 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Powell · United States v. Dionisio · Donaldson v. United States · United States v. National Bank
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay subject to the exceptions contained in subdivision (a) of this rule. The bond may be given at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal or of procuring the order allowing the appeal, as the case may be. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he language of Rule 62(d) seems clear, and the enumerated exceptions do not include tax summons enforcement proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 528-529 [ 91 S.Ct. 534, 541 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 ] (1971) ... we ruled that Rule 81(a)(3) and prior language in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 , 58 n.18 [ 85 S.Ct. 248 , 255 n. 18, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 ] (1964) to the effect that the Rules apply in summons enforcement proceedings were “not intended to impair a summary enforcement proceeding so long as the rights of the party summoned are protected and an adversary hearing, if requested, is made available.” When gathering testimony, the need for summary enforcement of IRS summonses is clear and justifies dispensing with federal rules which might interfere with that task.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.