Babb v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.2d 957 · 1974
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States v. National Bank of Commerce (1985), Michael-Regan Co. v. Lindell (1975)
21 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
Relies on Aquilino v. United States · Morgan v. Commissioner · United States v. Bess · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If California law makes the wife's share of the community property available to creditors of the husband, California law has by the same rule implicitly given the husband rights in that property sufficient to meet the requirements of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6321.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rights to property " for purposes of federal tax law. Seeid. at 959. We dismissed this contention, however, and our reasoning plainly disposes of Mrs. McIntyre's further argument that the scope of the federal authority to attach a wife's property for the satisfaction of a husband's tax debt should be uniform across states. See id. at 958-59 (distinguishing contrary holdings from cases in Washington and Arizona by noting that those states defined the husband's property interests differently by "deny[ing] premarital creditors of the husband access to the wife's share of the community”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“her husband [could] not be said to have `property or rights to property' " in that half, and the IRS thus could not attach it. Id. We rejected the wife's argument. We held that California law has "implicitly given the husband rights in [the wife's share] sufficient to meet the requirements”
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.