United States v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. ““The statute’s provision was not intended to exclude individuaos] or to limit the ordinary meaning of the term ‘person’ so as to exclude individuals or ‘natural persons’ ... from their responsibility to comply with the tax laws.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury · United States v. Latham

2. “We noted [in an earlier case] that selective enforcement of the law is not in itself a constitutional violation, in the absence of invidious purpose. We also held that selection of cases for close investigation and for prosecution (only if illegal conduct is discovered) is not impermissible simply because focused upon those most vocal in a concerted effort to encourage violation of the nation’s tax laws. The government’s prosecution of tax protestors as a group merely indicates a valid interest in punishing violators who flagrantly and vocally break the law. The selection for prosecution based in part upon the potential deterrent effect on others serves a legitimate interest in promoting more general compliance with the tax laws. Since the government lacks the means to investigate every suspected violation of the tax laws, it makes good sense to prosecute those who will receive, or are likely to receive, the attention of the media. For similar reasons, it is not unconstitutionally selective to focus for investigative purposes upon a group that on objective examination is much more likely than at random to have committed tax illegalities openly approved by them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hendrickson

3. “must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not. If the defendant makes this showing, he is further required to show that the government's discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Brewer