Johanson v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.3d 973 · 2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 71 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482
Relies on United States v. Ullah · Lovejoy v. Commissioner · Hoover v. Commissioner · Milenbach v. Commissioner · Kean 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xcept as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the obligation of a party under an order for the support of the other party terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the other party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'federal court will not engage in complex, subjective inquiries under state law; rather, the court will read the divorce instrument and make its own determination based on the language of the document.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“language in the written agreement reasonably susceptible to interpretation as a declaration of an intent that support continue beyond [death].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leslie v. Comm'r
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.