Coplin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
761 F.2d 688 · 1985
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably O'Connor 85-558 v. United States (1986), Harris v. United States (1985)
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano · Factor v. Laubenheimer · Jones v. United States · Sarah Boone v. William Chiles · D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. By virtue of this Agreement, the Commission, its contractors and subcontractors are exempt from payment in the Republic of Panama of all taxes, fees or other charges on their activities or property. 5”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I have the honor to refer to Article 15(2) of the Agreement in Implementation of Article III and to Article 16(2) of the Agreement in Implementation of Article IV of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. I have consulted with Drs. Romulo Escobar Bethancourt, Aristides Royo, Adolfo Ahumada, and Jaime Arias Calderon, Panamanian negotiators of those agreements, and they have confirmed to me that the provisions referred to above were discussed, negotiated, and drafted exclusively with respect to the tax exemptions that the Republic of Panama would grant to United States-citizen employees of the Panama Canal Commission and their dependents and to members of the United States Armed Forces and the civilian component and their dependents. The aforementioned provisions resulted from negotiations which did not deal with the United States authority to tax the individuals mentioned therein. The foregoing expresses the scope of the aforementioned provisions and also represents the interpretation of this Ministry. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rust v. Commissioner“The general rule on supplementing the record with new evidence is that 'appellate courts ... can act on no evidence which was not before the court below....'”
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.