American Association of Commodity Traders v. Department of Treasury’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2006
1 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Testan · Califano v. Sanders · Butz v. Economou
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . appellant’s recharacterization of its claim for taxes paid as ‘damages’ will not suffice to supplant the jurisdictional requirement that an administrative claim precede a refund suit. . . . When the injury claimed is payment of excessive income taxes and the defendant is the United States, no amount of artful pleading will convince us that the case is not a claim for refund of taxes . . . appellant’s attempt to base jurisdiction for its other damage claims upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) 2 is defeated by two clear provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have little doubt that this suit falls within the FTCA exclusion of claims ‘in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax. . . ’ 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (c). 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No agents of the federal government are parties to this suit and even if they were, their presence would not effect our jurisdiction over defendant agencies of the United States. It seems clear that the sovereign immunity of the United States is not waived simply because agents of the government may be personally liable for deprivation of constitutional interests.”
1 later decision 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.