green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.9 score
“taxable income is simply that portion of taxpayer's gross income that congress has chosen to tax.”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Berkley v. Gavin
he tax benefit rule is not limited to the recoveries of deductions
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers v. Interstate Commerce Commission
bn/frisco merger
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ford Motor Land Development Corp. v. Comptroller of Treasury
taxable income is simply that portion of taxpayer's gross income that congress has chosen to tax.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Arbitration Between Dow Corning Corporation v. Safety National Casualty Corporation
See Int’l Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548, 551-52 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981) (maritime arbitration); Transit Cas.
cited
Cited "see"
DowCorning Corp. v. Safety Natl Casualty
See Int’l Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548 , 551- 52 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 (1981) (maritime arbitration); Transit Cas.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roy Neset
(2×)
See 204 F.3d at 664 (holding that doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which arises when a claim is properly cognizable in court but contains some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency, does not apply when the specially competent agency is itself the plaintiff) (citing United States v. Alcon Labs., 636 F.2d 876, 888 (1st Cir.) (noting "deference to an agency’s primary jurisdiction makes little sense in the context of an ■ enforcement proceeding initiated by the agency”), ce rt. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roy Neset
See 204 F.3d at 664 (holding that doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which arises when a claim is properly cognizable in court but contains some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency, does not apply when the specially competent agency is itself the plaintiff) (citing United States v. Alcon Labs., 636 F.2d 876, 888 (1st Cir.) (noting “deference to an agency’s primary jurisdiction makes little sense in the context of an enforcement proceeding initiated by the agency”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 (1981)). -11- The district court did have jurisdiction over the § 40…
discussed
Cited "see"
Operation Rescue National v. United States
See United States v. Maryland, 488 F.Supp. 347, 356 (D.Md.), aff'd, 636 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981) (finding federal statute exempting members of Congress from state taxes to be constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc.
See Int’l Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548 , 551 n. 3 (2nd Cir.1981) (“It does not follow that an arbitrator’s personal feelings in favor of or against one attorney would necessarily be transferred to another attorney in the same firm.”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hartford Police Union v. Hartford, No. Cv93 070 46 64 (Apr. 13, 1995)
See International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Resshavet [Rosshavet] , 638 F.2d 548 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Morelife Construction Corporation v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds , 748 F.2d 79 (2d.
discussed
Cited "see"
Evan Rapsomanikis v. U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services
See id. at 601 ; accord United States v. Alcon Labs., 636 F.2d 876, 882 (1st Cir.) ("[t]he Supreme Court's decision in Ewing precludes judicial interference with the FDA's decision to institute enforcement actions, whatever the precise context"), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
See Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. United States, 632 F.2d 392 , 406 (5th Cir.1980) (“the future is not subject to proof”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3004 and 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
See Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. United States, 632 F.2d 392 , 406 (5th Cir.1980) ("the future is not subject to proof"), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3004 and 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians
See International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 579 F.2d 691, 700 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
L. Peter Kaiter v. Town of Boxford, Appeal of Kevin Wood
See United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F.2d 876, 884 (1st Cir.) (“The requisites may be summarized as separability, finality, urgency, and importance.”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronald M. Rodeo v. R. Dean Gillman
See Frederiksen v. Poloway, 637 F.2d 1147, 1148 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 1017 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Emisco Industries, Inc. v. Pro’s, Inc., 543 F.2d 38, 41 (7th Cir.1976) (“The transaction involved nothing more than a note used as a cash substitute in the purchase of property.
cited
Cited "see"
Florasynth, Inc. v. Alfred Pickholz
See International Produce v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548, 552 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Articles of Drug Consisting of the Following: 5,906 Boxes, Etc., United States of America v. Alcon Laboratories (Puerto Rico), Inc.
See United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F.2d 876 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
cadc 1983
(2×)
See Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. United States, 632 F.2d 391, 411-12 (5th Cir.1980) (a thorough opinion on which our own analysis relies heavily), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3004 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981); Florida East Coast Railway v. United States, 259 F.Supp. 993, 1019 (M.D.Fla.1966) (3-judge court), aff'd mem. in part and appeal dismissed in relevant part as moot, 386 U.S. 544 , 87 S.Ct. 1299 , 18 L.Ed.2d 285 (1967); Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States (RLEA 2d), 226 F.Supp. 521, 524-25 (E.D.Va.) (3-judge court), vacated and remanded per curiam, 379 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see"
Lamoille Valley Railroad v. Interstate Commerce Commission
(2×)
See Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. United States, 632 F.2d 391, 411-12 (5th Cir.1980) (a thorough opinion on which our own analysis relies heavily), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3004 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981); Florida East Coast Railway v. United States, 259 F.Supp. 993, 1019 (M.D.Fla.1966) (3-judge court), aff’d mem. in part and appeal dismissed in relevant part as moot, 386 U.S. 544 , 87 S.Ct. 1299 , 18 L.Ed.2d 285 (1967); Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. United States (RLEA 2d), 226 F.Supp. 521, 524-25 (E.D.Va.) (3-judge court), vacated and remanded per curiam, 379 U…
cited
Cited "see"
Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.
See United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F.2d 876, 885 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.
See United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F.2d 876, 885 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dahl v. English
See Frederiksen v. Poloway, 637 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Goodman v. Epstein, 582 F.2d 388 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 939 , 99 S.Ct. 1289 , 59 L.Ed.2d 499 (1979); Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96 (7th Cir.1977); see also Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 622 F.2d 216 (6th Cir.1980), aff'd on other grounds, 456 U.S. 353 , 102 S.Ct. 1825 , 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
(2×)
E.g., App. 30a; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 57 (1974); Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344, 349 (1855); see also International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F. 2d 548, 552 (CA2) (“The most sought-after arbitrators are those who are prominent and experienced members of the specific business community in which the dispute to be arbitrated arose”), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 1017 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Doris Wisher v. Paul Coverdell, in His Official Capacity as Director of the United States Peace Corps
We have held that in exceptional cases an order that does not entirely terminate an action may be appealable if it reflects the following: "(1) an issue essentially unrelated to the merits of the main dispute, capable of review without disrupting the main trial; (2) a complete resolution of the issue, not one that is 'unfinished' or 'inconclusive'; (3) a right incapable of vindication on appeal from a final judgment; and (4) an unsettled question of controlling law, not merely a question of the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion." United States v. Sorren, 605 F.2d 1211, 1213 (1st …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Co. v. ICC, 736 F.2d 708 , 725 (D.C.Cir.1984) (adopting holding and reasoning of Lamoille Valley ), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1208 , 105 S.Ct. 1171 , 84 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); see also Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. United States, 632 F.2d 392 , 410-12 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981); Crounse Corp. v. ICC, 781 F.2d 1176, 1192-93 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890 , 107 S.Ct. 290 , 93 L.Ed.2d 264 (1986). 22 In Lamoille Valley, we reviewed the Commission's approval of a merger of the Maine Central Railroad with the Boston & Maine Railroad pursuan…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Co. v. ICC, 736 F.2d 708 , 725 (D.C.Cir.1984) (adopting holding and reasoning of Lamoille Valley), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1208 , 105 S.Ct. 1171 , 84 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); see also Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. United States, 632 F.2d 392 , 410-12 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981); Crounse Corp. v. ICC, 781 F.2d 1176, 1192-93 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890 , 107 S.Ct. 290 , 93 L.Ed.2d 264 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mall Properties, Inc. v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Etc., City of New Haven, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant
See, e.g., United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F.2d 876, 884-885 (1st Cir.) (remand order putting in issue order in which agency enforcement action should proceed appealable under Cohen collateral order doctrine), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3005 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981); Gueory v. Hampton, 510 F.2d 1222 (D.C.Cir.1975) (Chairman’s appeal from order remanding to Civil Service Commission allowed); Paluso v. Mathews, 573 F.2d 4 (10th Cir.1978) (Secretary’s appeal from order remanding for further proceedings with respect to coal miner’s application for benefits); Citizens to …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roper Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
“Substantial evidence” exists when there is sufficient evidence “to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.” Illinois Central Railroad v. Norfolk & Western Railway, 385 U.S. 57, 66 , 87 S.Ct. 255, 260 , 17 L.Ed.2d 162 (1966); see also Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. United States, 632 F.2d 392,399 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3004 , 69 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Middlesex Mutual Insurance Company v. Stuart Levine
Compare Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145, 150 , 89 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968) (reasonable appearance of bias justifies vacating arbitration award) and Tamari v. Bache Halsey Stuart Inc., 619 F.2d 1196, 1200 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 873 , 101 S.Ct. 213 , 66 L.Ed.2d 93 (1980) (reasonable appearance of partiality) with International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d 548, 551 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017 , 101 S.Ct. 3006 , 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981) (requiring clear, unexplained evidence of evident partiality).
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.
v.
United States Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. United States and Illinois v. United States
v.
United States Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. United States and Illinois v. United States
No. 80-1434; No. 80-1439; No. 80-1632.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 26, 1981.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 632 F. 2d 392.