Hawkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 982 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner (1999), Schelble v. Commissioner (1997)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
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. § 1 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008) · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 402 · 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. · United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe · Chitwood v. McLemore · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the [plan] participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee; r (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined; (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies; and (iv) each plan to which such order applies.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“come[s] within the statutory definition of an `alternate payee'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamilton v. Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan · David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor v. Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund Western Washington U.A. Supplemental Pension Trust, Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Linda Oppegaard, Guardian of Sarah Hamilton, and David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Defendant-Cross-Defendant, Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor, and Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan, Local Union 32, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant. Linda Oppegaard, Guardian of Sarah Hamilton, and David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor“To require more specificity would defeat the purpose of the provision creating an exception to inalienability for qualified domestic relations orders ... It is asking too much of domestic relations lawyers and judges to expect them to dot every i and cross every t in formulating divorce decrees that have ERISA impli cations. Ideally, every domestic relations lawyer should be conversant with ERISA, but it is unrealistic to expect all of them to be. We do not think Congress meant to ask the impossible, not ■ the literally, but the humanly, impossible.”
2 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.