Marvel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 1507 · 1983
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Chila (1989), Purcell v. United States (1993)
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 3101 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 6303 · 26 U.S.C. § 6651 · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 26 U.S.C. § 7701 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. Raddatz · United States v. Janis · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the determination of whether an individual is an employee is a question of fact”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Poulton“It is thus clear that the Federal Magistrates Act, prior to the adoption of the 1979 amendments, authorized reference by the court to a magistrate ... for trial when the parties consented.”); Muhich v. Allen, 603 F.2d 1247, 1251 (7th Cir.1979) (construing local court rule, in conjunction with § 636(b)(4) — which requires district courts to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gonzalez v. Rakkas
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.