Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 F.2d 772 - Bowles v. United States

Bowles v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

73 F.2d 772 · 1934

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
November 1984
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 1984 · most notably Myres v. United States (1949), Yarborough v. United States (1956)

31 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

340193419401950196019701980decided

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 United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · Gavieres v. United States · Ex Parte Nielsen · Burton 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendant being a resident of the District of Columbia, it became his duty to make his income tax return to the Collector at Baltimore, Md., and failure to make such return constituted an offense within the District of Maryland. In United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 , 36 S.Ct. 508 , 60 L.Ed. 897 , it was held that a resident of the state of Washington was guilty of an offense in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, for failing to file with the Commissioner General of Immigration, in the District of Columbia, a statement in writing required by an Act of Congress. In Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 , 39 S.Ct. 483 , 486, 63 L.Ed. 983 , the court said: “ ‘It is contended, indeed, that there was no probable cause to believe that the offense charged in the Washington indictment was committed within the District of Columbia, and this upon the ground that appellant was not personally present in the District at the time of the alleged offense, and that he was under no duty to make report there to the Alien Property Custodian. The commissioner, however, found as a matter of fact that the Custodian’s office was in the District of Columbia, and as the finding was supported by competent evidence the District Court properly held that it was not reviewable on writ of habeas corpus. That being so, the duty imposed by the statute to make report to the Alien Property Custodian involved the duty to make such report in the District of Columbia, and failure to make it was an of”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any person required under this subchapter to pay any tax, or required by law or regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, for the purposes of the computation, assessment, or collection of any tax imposed by this subehapter who willfully fails to pay such tax, make such returns, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.””
    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.