Jacobs v. I’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (2011), Vaughn v. United States of Internal Revenue Service (2014)
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 7201
Relies on Griffith v. United States · Target Corp. v. Hollister · United States v. Hook · In Re: Leroy Charles Griffith · Club Associates v. Consolidated Capital Realty Investors
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the debtor has a duty under the law; (2) the debtor knew of that duty; and (3) the debtor voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“knows of his or her tax liabilities, is capable of meeting them, but does not.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress did not define or limit the methods by which a willful attempt to defeat and evade might be accomplished and perhaps did not define lest its effort to do so result in some unexpected limitation.” Fegeley, 118 F.3d at 983 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Practices, such as”
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.