Kluger v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Naftel v. Commissioner (1985), Dahlstrom v. Commissioner (1985)
2 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 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Stone v. Powell · United States v. Calandra · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Weeks v. United States · Commissioner v. Sunnen
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concluded that Baggot ... did not represent a “clear break” with past precedent, or constitute a case of first impression. Accordingly, [Judge Fisher] found the threshold test of Chevron Oil not to be satisfied. However, in reaching its conclusion that Baggot did not constitute a case of first impression, [Judge Fisher] considered the existence of prior lower court precedent which adopted the analysis ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court in Baggot to be dispositive. Upon this point, we disagree. The threshold inquiry of whether a case is one of first impression is clearly intended to focus on the Supreme Court’s prior precedent (see Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. [-] at-[ 104 S.Ct. 1338 at 1341 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984) ], not on the state of lower court decisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DiVivo v. Egger“determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence in proceedings before this Court are an inherent power incident to this Court’s duty to redetermine proposed income tax deficiencies. The fact that a determination of admissibility of evidence involves an inquiry into the propriety of actions of other courts, or other branches of Government, has never been thought to deprive this or any other Federal court of the authority to exercise that power * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“are not to be applied retroactively to invalidate final rule 6(e) orders under collateral attack in this Court.”
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.