Chiles v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
843 F.2d 367 · 1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2007
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 2001 (Excise, Estate, and Gift Tax Adjustment Act of 1970) · 26 U.S.C. § 2011 · 26 U.S.C. § 2053 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056
Relies on Morton v. Mancari · Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Poe v. Seaborn · Riggs v. Del Drago · Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We cannot conclude that Congress chose to repeal [ I.R.C.] section 2056(c) expressly and left section 2056(b)(4)(A) intact only to effectuate its repeal by implication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Berry v. Comm'r
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.