green
Positive treatment
6.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1929 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1929
1977
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lester Genser and Lawrence Forman
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (S.D.Ala.1924).
cited
Cited "see"
STATE BY & THROUGH DORGAN v. Union State Bank
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff’g, 295 F. 142 (S.D.Ala.1924).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Miller
(2×)
See First National Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U. S. 576 (1925), aff'g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala. 1924).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank C. Hilton
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 [ 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 ] (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (S.D.Ala.1924); Donaldson v. United States, supra, [ 400 U.S. 517 (1971)] at 522 [ 91 S.Ct. 534 at 538 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 at 584 ]. ‘[I]f is difficult to see how the summoning of a third party, and the records of a third party, can violate the rights of the taxpayer, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated or in progress.’ Id., at 537 [ 91 S.Ct. at 545 , 27 L.Ed.2d at 593 ] (Douglas, J., concurring).” 416 U.S. at 53 , 94 S.Ct. at 1513 , 39 L.Ed.2d at 835 . (emphasis supp…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William L. Riddick and Thomas B. Wallace
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (S.D.Ala.1924); Donaldson v. United States, supra, 400 U.S. 517 at 522 , 91 S.Ct. 534, 538 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971). “[I]t is difficult to see how the summoning of a third party, and the records of a third party, can violate the rights of the taxpayer, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated or in progress.” Id., 400 U.S. at 537 , 91 S.Ct. 534 (Douglas, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mitchell Miller, Susan McDuffie Weeks, and John Henry McDuffie
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (S.D.Ala.1924); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 522 , 91 S.Ct. 534, 538 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971). “[I]t is difficult to see how the summoning of a third party, and the records of a third party, can violate the rights of taxpayer, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated or in progress.” Donaldson v. United States, supra, at 537, 91 S.Ct. at 545 (Douglas, J., concurring). 416 U.S. at 53 , 94 S.Ct. at 1513 , 39 L.Ed.2d at 835 . 8 Although the Court recognized that th…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook v. United States
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 [ 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 ] (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala.1924); Donaldson v. United States, supra, 400 U.S. 517, 522 , [ 91 S.Ct. 534, 538 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 .] (1971) “[I]t is difficult to see how the summoning of a third party, and the records of a third party, can violate the rights of the taxpayer, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated or in progress.” [400 U.S.] at 537 [, 91 S.Ct. at 545 ] (Douglas, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz
(2×)
See First National Bank v. United States, 267 U. S. 576 (1925), aff'g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala. 1924); Donaldson v. United States, supra, at 522. "[I]t is difficult to see how the summoning of a third party, and the records of a third party, can violate the rights of the taxpayer, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated or in progress." Id., at 537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Broome v. Simon
See United States v. First National Bank of Mobile, D.C.Ala.1924, 295 F. 142 , affirmed 45 S.Ct. 231 , 267 U.S. 576 , 69 L.Ed. 796 , pertaining to bank records and United States v. Austrew, U.S.D.C.Md., 1962, 202 F.Supp. 816 , affirmed 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 926 ; United States v. Laughlin, D.C.1964, 226 F.Supp. 112 , pertaining to records of telephone calls.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Colton
See First National Bank of Mobile, Ala. v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 .
cited
Cited "see"
Application of Edward E. Colton and Lillian Kaltman, to Quash a Summons to Appear to Testify and to Produce Books, Etc., Relating to the Tax Liability of Herbert Matter and Mercedes Matter. Internal Revenue Service of the United States Treasury Department
See First National Bank of Mobile, Ala. v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Frank L. Silverman
See also Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 522 , 91 S.Ct. 534 , 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971), citing First Nat’l Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142, 143 (S.D.Ala.1924); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 491-492 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. Beigel, 370 F.2d 751, 756 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 930 , 87 S.Ct. 2049 , 18 L.Ed.2d 989 (1967); Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 912 , 79 S.Ct. 1297 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Royal G. Bouschor v. United States
See also, where appealability seems to have been assumed sub silentio, First National Bank of Mobile, Ala. v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 576 , 45 S.Ct. 231 , 69 L.Ed. 796 , affirming 5 Cir., 295 F. 142 ; Wall v. Mitchell, 4 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 31 ; Eberhart v. Broadrock Development Corp., 6 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 685 , cert. denied 369 U.S. 871 , 82 S.Ct. 1139 , 8 L.Ed.2d 275 ; In re Fahey, 6 Cir., 1961, 300 F.2d 383 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Forrest P. Tayloe
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 242.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 2, 1925.
Mr. Harry Peyton for appellant. Mr. Alfred A. ■ Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for the United States.
Published
Per Curidm.
Affirmed, upon the authority of Brawley v. United States, 96 U. S. 168, 173; Willard Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 489, 494.