Nickerson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.2d 31 · 1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Texas Commerce Bank-Fort Worth, N.A. v. United States (1990), Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. United States (1985)
9 federal appellate · 8 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. § 7426 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2410
Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · McMahon v. United States · Honda v. Clark · Shaw v. United States
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Wrongful levy. — If a levy has been made on property or property has been sold pursuant to a levy, any person (other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose) who claims an interest in or lien on such property and that such property was wrongfully levied upon may bring a civil action against the United States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled that the United States may not be sued absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. Nickerson claims to have found such a waiver in 26 U.S.C. § 7426 (a), which he alleges should be construed to permit such suit whenever there has been a levy even if, as in the present case, the levy has been released and is no longer outstanding. While the wording of the statute does not specifically foreclose such a construction at least one court has refused to enjoin a threatened first levy noting that the statute reaches only “existing” levies, and no other court has exercised jurisdiction absent such a levy. This construction derives support from the fact that the exclusive remedies of subsection (b) seem to contemplate an existing levy.”
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.