Traficant v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Sammons (1990), United States v. Dale (1993)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 26 U.S.C. § 6653 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 26 U.S.C. § 7454 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · Carnegie v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Helvering v. Mitchell
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“primarily as a safeguard for the protection of the revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe it was proper under principles of reciprocity for the Tax Court to bar Traficant, once he had invoked the privilege against self-incrimination on the authenticity of the statement and the tapes, from introducing other evidence on that matter. Such limits are properly within the scope of cases holding that a party to civil litigation or other noncriminal proceedings may encounter costs imposed in exchange for the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege as long as they are not so high as to force abandonment of the privilege. Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515 , 87 S.Ct. 625, 628 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967); see also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 , 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). Note, however, that when the issue is whether a court may impose broad limits on the admissibility of evidence, the cases permit only limits directly related to the scope of the asserted privilege. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cymaticolor, 106 F.R.D. 545 (S.D.N.Y.1985); In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 364 (M.D.Pa.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State.”
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.