Rowe v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.2d 1065 · 1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2003
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 611 · 26 U.S.C. § 613 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Portland Cement Company of Utah · United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co. · Union Pacific Railroad v. United States · Douglas v. Commissioner · Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co. 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We need not balance these opposing contentions as if we were the legislators. We see no general, overall policy in the tax-depletion legislation pushing against integration. Instead, depletion law appears to us to have been influenced by a number of different and possibly conflicting interests, some special and some more widespread. There is no all-dominating pattern, but a variety of separate adjustments. In this instance we cannot say that the reading that hugs the text of the statute and regulations necessarily leads to absurd or unwanted results. In ascertaining Congress’ intent in this area, it is more helpful to look for guidance to the particular statute and regulations, rather than attempting to interpret applicable law in a distorted fashion simply to reconcile it with vague notions of overall public policy not clearly incorporated in the statute. This is especially true where, as here, the [legislative] Treasury regulations are entitled to greater than usual deference because "Congress obviously could not foresee the multifarious circumstances which would involve questions of depletion. * * * "Portland Cement, supra [ 450 U.S. 156, 169 (1981)] at 1045.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“includes only -- (i) The extraction of ores or minerals from the ground; (ii) Mining processes, as described in subparagraphs (2) through (6) of this paragraph; and (iii) So much of the transportation (whether or not by common carrier) of ores or minerals from the point of extraction of the ores or minerals from the ground to the plants or mills in which the processes referred to in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph are applied thereto as is not in excess of 50 miles * * * (2) Definition of mining processes . (i) As used in subparagraph (1)(ii) of this paragraph, the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(4) Treatment processes considered as mining. — The following treatment processes where applied by the mine owner or operator shall be considered as mining to the extent they are applied to the ore or mineral in respect of which he is entitled to a deduction for depletion under section 611: (A) In the case of coal — cleaning, breaking, sizing, dust allaying, treating to prevent freezing, and loading for shipment; * * * [Emphasis supplied.]”
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.