Scheidelman v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
755 F.3d 148 · 2014
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 170 · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482 · 26 U.S.C. § 7491
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Scottish American Inv Co · Silverman v. Commissioner · Estate of Curry 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o the contrary, the regulations provide that an easement that has no material effect on the obligations of the property owner or the uses to which the property may be put “may have no material effect on the value of the property.” And sometimes an easement “may in fact serve to enhance, rather than reduce, the value of the property. In such instances no deduction would be allowable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Valuation is . . . necessarily an approximation[,]' and '[i]t is not necessary that the value arrived at by the trial court be a figure as to which there is specific testimony, if it is within the range of figures that may properly be deduced from the evidence.'”
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.