Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 F.2d 987 - Cox v. Helvering

Cox v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis

71 F.2d 987 · 1934

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Ullman v. Commissioner (1959), Hamlin's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1954)

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

200193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Shine v. Culver

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

  1. ““Generally speaking, a contract to refrain from engaging in a particular business, where the restraint is limited as to time and space, is valid, but this rule is conditioned on the further rule that the stipulation must be ancillary to some lawful contract, such as vendor and vendee, and be reasonably necessary to protect the vendee in the enjoyment of the fruits of the contract. Where the sole object of both parties in making the contract is merely to restrain competition and enhance and maintain prices, the contract is void.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If the $15,000 was paid to the selling corporation and distributed by it to its principal stockholder by some intracompany agreement, it might very well be designated, as the Commissioner designed it, a liquidating dividend, for in that case it would be a profit earned in the sale of capital assets. On the other hand, if it was paid directly to petitioner, as an ancillary agreement with the contract, it was to its extent a gain received by him in consideration of forbearing, rather than doing, personal services.””
    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.