Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 F.2d 195 - Wampler v. Snyder

Wampler v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis

66 F.2d 195 · 1933

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Reass v. United States (1938), Bowles v. United States (1934)

24 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

250193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 2053

Relies on United States v. Angeline Lombardo · Fernandez v. Phillips · George Henry v. William Henkel · George Beavers v. William Henkel · Rodman v. Pothier

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

  1. ““The words ‘shall be made,’ as used in the statute, are the equivalent of ‘shall be filed,’ and to file a paper is to deliver it at the place where it is to be lodged and kept. When the mails are utilized for this purpose, the filing takes places upon delivery at the office of the official required to receive it.” Citing United States v. Lombardo, supra, and cases cited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Disputed questions of fact, especially where they involve the question of intent, ... should never be considered on the question of probable cause.”
    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.