Rickel v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably United States v. Burke (1992), Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. E Schleier B (1995)
39 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Western District Court)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 104 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 26 U.S.C. § 7430 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Pierce v. Underwood · Wilson v. Garcia · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“gross income does not include ... the amount of any damages received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal injuries or sickness....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [I]t might be troubling to some that a successful plaintiff in an ADEA suit will make out better, vis-a-vis federal income tax liability, than if the plaintiff had not been discriminated against in the first place. Although this concern is understandable, we note that we are simply following the Treasury regulation that injects into the analysis tort and contract concepts. Moreover, the successful ADEA plaintiff is being treated no better (or worse now) than the typical tort victim who suffers a physical injury ... We see no reason to treat one personal injury victim any differently than another.”
5 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.