7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 47 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. Anchor | green | “a taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully assessed or collected may bring an action against the government either in united states district court or in the united states court of federal claims.” | 13 |
| 2 | Chicago Milwaukee Corporation v. United States | green | “section 7422(a) creates a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a refund suit.” | 9 |
| 3 | Commissioner v. Lundy | green | “must comply with the code's refund scheme before bringing suit, including the requirement to file a timely administrative claim.” | 7 |
| 4 | Buser v. United States | green | “it is 'undisputed' that the court of federal claims possesses the authority to adjudicate tax refund claims.” | 6 |
| 5 | Deutsche Bank AG v. United States | green | “there is no question, however, that this court has subject matter jurisdiction under the tucker act, 28 u.s.c. 1491 (2006), over claims, such as the present one, seeking to recover statutory interest on income tax refunds.” | 5 |
| 6 | Radioshack Corp. v. United States | green | “this court has jurisdiction to consider tax refund suits under 28 u.s.c. 1491 (a)(1).” | 4 |
| 7 | Strategic Housing Finance Corp. v. United States | green | “it is 'undisputed' that the court of federal claims possesses the authority to adjudicate tax refund claims.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.