Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 758 F.2d 1 - Kaufman v. Egger

Kaufman v. Egger’s Empirical Analysis

758 F.2d 1 · 1985

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
June 2018
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Sher v. Commissioner (1988), Sher v. Commissioner (1987)

36 federal appellate · 5 district ·

6001985199020002010decided

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. § 6212 · 26 U.S.C. § 7403 · 26 U.S.C. § 7430

Relies on 584 F. Supp. 872 - Kaufman v. Egger · Hallam v. Murphy · Sharpe v. United States · 584 F. Supp. 1582 - Penner 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(A) In general. — The term "prevailing party” means any party in any proceeding to which subsection (a) applies (other than the United States or any creditor of the taxpayer involved)— (i) which establishes that the position of the United States in the proceeding was not substantially justified, (ii) which— (I) has substantially prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy, or (II) has substantially prevailed with respect to the most significant issue or set of issues presented, and (iii) which meets the requirements of the 1st sentence of section 2412(d)(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code (as in effect on October 22, 1986) except to the extent differing procedures are established by rule of court and meets the requirements of section 2412(d)(2)(B) of such title 28 (as so in effect). 26 U.S.C. § 7430 (c)(4).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... after causing a taxpayer all kinds of bureaucratic grief, at the administrative level could escape attorney's fee liability by merely changing its tune after the initiation of a suit....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “deter abusive actions and overreaching by the Internal Revenue Service and ... enable individual taxpayers to vindicate their rights regardless of their economic circumstances,”
    3 later decisions 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.