Laino v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 626 · 1980
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Lonsdale v. United States (1990), Llorente v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1981)
21 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6213 · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2410
Relies on Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co. · Flora v. United States · Bob Jones University v. Simon · Frey v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shapiro
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Later decisions reaffirming this two-pronged test have noted the ‘almost literal effect’ which Williams Packing gave to the Act, and characterized it as requiring that the Government’s action be ‘plainly without a legal basis’ or have no ‘chance of success on the merits’.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus it appears that the potential difficulty inherent in a refund suit, the very hardship of which [taxpayers] complain here, was an evil which Congress sought to overcome not by dissolving the bar of the Anti-Injunction Act altogether, but by providing for pre-payment review of the Commissioner’s determination. The exception to the Act which accompanied this legislative solution was a limited one, designed solely to protect the taxpayer’s right to seek Tax Court review before paying any assessment. It would be a patent violation of this legislative plan were we to encourage taxpayers to spurn redetermination by the Tax Court and to come instead into equity complaining of the hardship of a refund suit. (Citing Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 , 80 S.Ct. 630 (1960), noting in footnotes: “Our conclusion that [taxpayers] inexcusably bypassed an adequate legal remedy makes it unnecessary to determine whether in the circumstances of this case, a refund suit afforded them another adequate remedy at law.” (Emphasis added.) 633 F.2d 626 , 631, n. 4.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [House of Representatives] Committee recommends the establishment of a Board of Tax Appeals [now the Tax Court] to which a taxpayer may appeal prior to the payment of an additional assessment of income, excess-profits, war-profits, or estate taxes. Although a taxpayer may, after payment of his tax, bring suit for the recovery (hereof and thus secure a judicial determination on the questions involved, he cannot, in view of [the Anti-Injunction Act], which prohibits suits to enjoin the collection of taxes, secure such a determination prior to the payment of the tax. The right of appeal after payment of the tax is an incomplete remedy, and does little to remove the hardship occasioned by an incorrect assessment.”
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.