In re Parrish’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 507 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 26 U.S.C. § 5000 · 26 U.S.C. § 5000A · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 42 U.S.C. § 18022
Relies on Russello v. United States · Crowell v. Benson · Hooper v. People of State of California · Child Labor Tax Case · United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress's primary, or dominant, purpose of imposing the individual mandate of the ACA was not to support or fund the government fiscally, but to discourage Americans from living without health insurance coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Huenerberg“is a penalty designed to deter citizens from living without health insurance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Huenerberg“If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Huenerberg
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.