Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 489 U.S. 353 - United States v. Stuart

United States v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

470
cited by 470 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

181 federal appellate · 31 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 470 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Medellin v. Texas (2008), Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (1989)

181 federal appellate · 31 district · 20 state decisions

196019891990200020102020decided

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

reviewedPhilip George Stuart, Sr. v. United States of America, Mons Kapoor v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Powell · United States v. National Bank · Edye v. Robertson · Air France v. Saks · United States v. Arthur Young & Co.

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

  1. “'[S]ummons enforcement proceedings should be summary in nature and discovery should be limited.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “has recommended to the Attorney General a grand jury investigation of, or the criminal prosecution of, [the recipient of the summons] for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.