Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 872 - Morris v. United States

Morris v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 872 · 1975

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Birnbaum v. United States (1978), Blessing v. United States (1978)

48 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

43019751980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on Williams v. United States · Gibson v. United States · Bowman v. White · Broadway Open Air Theatre, Inc. 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Even assuming arguendo that the Internal Revenue agents’ collection activity was beyond the normal scope of authority and amounted to tortious conduct, we find that the claim falls squarely within the exempted group of tort claims arising out of tax collection efforts. The alleged conduct of the IRS agents, if true, would be deplorable; nevertheless, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against them.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[amy claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.