Swift v. Levesque’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2004
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
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. § 6672
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corporation · Schwabenbauer v. Board of Education · White v. United States · Gomeau v. Forrest
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.
“The jury’s finding of willfulness in the underlying action by the IRS is not dis-positive of the obligations between these two parties, as defined by state law. Federal courts discussing § 6672 have clearly stated that although the section is a civil penalty it is quite different from a criminal punishment, and is “simply a means of ensuring that the tax which is unquestionably owed the government is paid.” In effect, it is “merely” a collec tion device. The government must establish willfulness as a means to impose personal liability but willfulness does not require a showing of “bad purpose.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mere fortuity of IRS collection practices [which] should not shift the ultimate burden of payment to only one of the parties.” Swift v. Levesque, 614 F. Supp. 172, 177 (D. Conn. 1985). Plaintiff has a right to contribution where he had to pay”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.