Cardwell v. Kurtz’s Empirical Analysis
765 F.2d 776 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Relies on Andresen v. Maryland · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Egger v. Phillips · United States v. Cardwell · United States v. Abrams
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the district court's order and remand the case to the district court for further consideration, including whether Kahhat is eligible to recover under the Act based on his net worth. 2. Rule 11 11 Kahhat contends the district court abused its discretion when it refused to impose Rule 11 sanctions against the government. He alleges that the government did not conduct a reasonable investigation prior to seizing his funds. Kahhat also complains that the government did not accurately investigate the source of the allegation that he”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government’s position is ‘substantially justified’ within the meaning of the EAJA if it ‘has a reasonable basis both in law and fact.’ Timms v. United States, 742 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir.1984). We consider both ‘the underlying agency action and the legal position of the United States during litigation’ in analyzing the substantial justification issue. Id. .... The government bears the burden of proving its position was substantially justified. Id. at 492 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is defined somewhat differently when deciding if the position of the United States was substantially justified. I.R.C. § 7430(c)(7). The IRS argues that the Letter was sent in the course of an audit of the Smiths' tax return and therefore the Smiths' claims arose”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Brady
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.