Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 F.2d 462 - No. 73-1756

No. 73-1756’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
4
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975), Franklin D. Cooper and Evelyn L. Cooper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1976)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

8019751980199020002010decided

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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Rodriguez v. New York · Douglas v. Alabama · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · United States v. Peltier

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

  1. “(a) Decree of divorce or separate maintenance. — If a wife is divorced or legally separated from her husband under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, the wife’s gross income includes periodic pay ments (whether or not made at regular intervals) received after such decree in discharge of (or attributable to property transferred, in trust or otherwise, in discharge of) a legal obligation which, because of the marital or family relationship, is imposed on or incurred by the husband under the decree or under a written instrument incident to such divorce or separation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Other factors present here which indicate a capital contribution are the fact the noteholders ... were the actual promoters of Builders, the fact they would bear the principal loss if Builders failed, and the fact they had substantial control over Builders.”); E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, 471 F.2d at 1215 (”
    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.