Commonwealth v. Marros’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fuentes v. Shevin · Bell v. Burson · Phillips v. Commissioner · Cedarbrook Realty, Inc. v. Nahill · Biedrzycki v. A. J. Schrader, 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case, the Marroses do not deny liability, rather they seek to challenge the correctness of the assessment. The tax code sets forth procedures whereby taxpayers may appeal from assessments made by the Department. Marroses argue, however, that they were not the taxpayer at the time the assessment was made and notice thereof was given. They insist that there is some duty upon the Department to search them out in order that they may take advantage of the rights afforded to taxpayers under the Code. Their complaint is that they did not know until 1979 about taxes due in 1970. Marroses, like all other Pennsylvania citizens, are presumed to know the law. 14 P.L.E. Evidence § 26 (1959). Had they followed the provisions of Section 1403 of the Code, they would have known about the taxes and they would have had the opportunity to contest the assessment thereof. As set forth in Commonwealth v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., 347 Pa. 410, 416 , 32 A.2d 631, 633 (1943), ‘the object of [the statute] ... is obviously to prevent a corporation owing taxes to the Commonwealth from denuding itself of its assets without first making payment of such taxes or without such payment being made by the purchaser of its assets.’ Being well satisfied that had Marroses acted in accord with the provisions of the law, they would have had an opportunity to have a judicial determination of the amount of taxes due, we must now address the question of whether their lack of diligence in that respect d”
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.