Drew v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
551 F.2d 85 · 1977
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2012
9 federal appellate ·
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. § 103 · 26 U.S.C. § 1033 · 26 U.S.C. § 453 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank · Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co. · American National Bank v. United States · United States Trust Co. of New York v. Anderson · Holley 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [use of warrants] imposed no burden upon TRA, it was not in need of funds to purchase the land involved. The necessary money had already been acquired through its initial bond issue. The manner in which the purchases were made was at the suggestion of and for the benefit of the landowners. The fact that TRA allowed them and other landowners to elect to receive compensation on a deferred basis, and thereby to obtain the additional tax advantage of installment reporting, did not convert the transaction to a voluntary one. Likewise, the incidental circumstance that TRA realized a profit on its escrow investments does not compel the conclusion that the issuance of the warrants was an exercise of its borrowing power to obtain credit.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the contract to defer payment was voluntary, the taking was not, all the proceedings being under the power of eminent domain and necessarily compulsory upon the [taxpayer]. The compensation therefore had to be that required in condemnation proceedings .... Under such circumstances, the interest is considered to be part of the award itself”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike the taxpayers in Meyer and Kings County, taxpayers in the present case had no alternative but to sell their property to TRA because of the Authority’s [TRA’s] power of eminent domain. Although this is not in the strict sense a condemnation award case, and the District Court did not so hold, the analogy is persuasive. It is undisputed that taxpayers conveyed their land to TRA under the threat of condemnation. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Commissioner
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.