Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 F.2d 649 - Gloyd v. Commissioner

Gloyd v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

63 F.2d 649 · 1933

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 1989
most recently cited

42 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1989 · most notably Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1934), Marie H. Hamm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, William Hamm, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1963)

42 federal appellate ·

160193319401950196019701980decided

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. § 935

Relies on United States v. Anderson · The Conqueror · Wickwire v. Reinecke · United States v. Mitchell · Head v. Hargrave

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Of course, there must be substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board or it cannot stand, but we do not understand the law to be that the Board is compelled to accept the evidence of experts as to values of property. It is within its province to accept such evidence in toto, in part, or not at all. Its weight is with the trial Board, and its worth is for its sound judgment to determine. It is not required to surrender its judgment to the judgment of experts. It is the one to determine the facts — not the experts.””
    3 later decisions 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.