Woolford Realty Co. v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.2d 821 · 1931
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 937 · 26 U.S.C. § 993
Relies on Swift & Co. v. United States · First Nat Bank of Chicago v. United States · Ice Service Co. v. Commissioner · St. Louis Architectural Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · Alabama By-Products Corp. v. Commissioner
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ If, for any taxable year, it appears upon the production of evidence satisfactory to the commissioner that any taxpayer has sustained a net loss, the amount thereof shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the net income of the taxpayer for the succeeding taxable year (hereinafter in this section called ‘second year’), and if such net loss is in excess of such net income (computed without such deduction), the amount of such excess shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the net income for the next succeeding taxable year (hereinafter in this section called ‘ third year ’); the deduction in all cases to be made under regulations prescribed by the commissioner with the approval of the Secretary.””
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.