Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 875 - United States v. Harris

United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 875 · 1980

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably United States v. Davis (1981), United States v. Kis (1981)

41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

5201980199020002010decided

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. § 7402 · 26 U.S.C. § 7601 · 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7604

Relies on United States v. Powell · Donaldson v. United States · United States v. National Bank · Reisman v. Caplin · Delli Paoli 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A taxpayer's right to an adversary hearing on the good faith issue is not absolute.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) Jurisdiction of district court. — If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, the United States district court for the district in which such person resides or is found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production- of books, papers, records, or other data.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the taxpayer's evidence reveals: '(1) that the IRS issued summonses after the investigating agents recommended prosecution, (2) that inordinate and unexplained delays in the investigation transpired, or (3) that the investigating agents were in contact with the Department of Justice,' the district court must then permit further investigation.”
    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.