Don King Productions, Inc. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
945 F.2d 529 · 1991
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. McCombs (1994), American Trust v. American Community Mutual Insurance (1998)
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 6321 (Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966) · 26 U.S.C. § 6322 · 26 U.S.C. § 6323 · 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Relies on United States v. City of New Britain · Aquilino v. United States · United States v. National Bank of Commerce · United States v. Bess · United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder that rule, a federal tax lien takes priority over competing liens unless the competing lien was choate, or fully established, prior to the attachment of the federal lien.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder 26 U.S.C. § 6323 (a), certain persons are protected against unrecorded federal tax liens. Section 6323(a) provides: The lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirement of subsection (f) has been filed by the Secretary. Only those persons specifically listed in the statute are entitled to priority over unrecorded federal tax liens. See 14 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 15A.03, at 15-16 (1991).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the federal revenue statute, federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors; however, [as noted,] state law controls in determining the nature of a taxpayer’s interest in property. SEC v. Levine, 881 F.2d 1165 , 1175 (2d Cir.1989); see also National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. [713] at 722, 105 S.Ct. [2919] at 2925 [ 86 L.Ed.2d 565 ]; Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 513 , 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1280 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1960). “[W]hether the [federal] tax lien has attached depends on the state law question of ownership, since the lien can only attach to property that the taxpayer owns.” United States v. Fontana, 528 F.Supp. 137, 143 (S.D.N.Y.1981). “This follows from the fact that the federal statute ‘creates no property rights but merely attaches consequences, federally defined, to rights created under state law.’ ” National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. at 722 , 105 S.Ct. at 2925 (quoting United States v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 55 , 78 S.Ct. 1054, 1057 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1958)).”
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.