Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 329 - United States v. Poll

United States v. Poll’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 329 · 1975

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Sorenson v. United States (1975), United States v. McGill (1992)

32 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

18019751980199020002010decided

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 · 26 U.S.C. § 7202 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203

Relies on Spies v. United States · United States v. Murdock · Thompson v. United States · United States v. Bishop · Schmerler Ford, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

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

  1. “[T]o establish willfulness the Government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time payment was due the taxpayer possessed sufficient funds to enable him to meet his obligation or that the lack of sufficient funds on such date was created by (or was the result of) a voluntary and intentional act without justification in view of all the financial circumstances of the taxpayer.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” ... generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” or “evil motive and want of justification in view of all the financial circumstances of the taxpayer,” or knowledge that the taxpayer “should have reported more income than he did.” Our references to other formulations of the standard did not modify the standard [that the word ‘willfully’ ... generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ny person required under [Title 26] to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by [Title 26] who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall . . . be guilty of a felony.”
    2 later decisions 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.