Hall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 722 · 1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1311 · 26 U.S.C. § 1312 · 26 U.S.C. § 1313 · 26 U.S.C. § 1314 · 26 U.S.C. § 6511 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422 · 26 U.S.C. § 7806 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on United States v. Dalm · United States v. Correll · National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United States · Fulman v. United States · Chertkof v. United States
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as such, see Hall v. United States, 975 F.2d 722 , 726 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that the mitigation provisions of 26 U.S.C. §§ 1311-14”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“relate to claims for refund of income taxes, not other taxes such as the windfall profit tax....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.