TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arrowsmith v. Commissioner

Arrowsmith, Executors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Motors Insurance Corp. v. Robinson, Superintendent of Insurance of Ohio Costello v. United States Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United States Copperweld Steel Co. v. United States Lewis v. Virginia

Arrowsmith v. Comm'r, 344 U.S. 900 (1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 8, 1952
Docket
Nos. 51; No. 241; No. 329; No. 353; No. 358; No. 173
Citations
344 U.S. 90073 S. Ct. 273

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ante, p. 6;

ante, p. 803;

ante, p. 874;

ante, p. 871;

ante, p. 871; and ante, p. 880. Petitions for rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 11955: 11956: 21963: 11968: 11969: 119532026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, Chief Judge203 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1953)
  2. Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Packard Bell Electronics Corp.290 F. Supp. 308 (C.D. Cal. 1968)
  3. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Ginsburg228 F.2d 881 (3d Cir. 1956)
  4. Denis v. Perfect Parts, Inc.142 F. Supp. 259 (D. Mass. 1956)
  5. Clayton v. Swift & Company132 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. Va. 1955)
  6. Dover Corporation v. Fisher Governor Company221 F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Tex. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp.298 F. Supp. 898 (D. Neb. 1969)
  2. Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Packard Bell Electronics Corp.290 F. Supp. 308 (C.D. Cal. 1968)
  3. Dover Corporation v. Fisher Governor Company221 F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Tex. 1963)
  4. Denis v. Perfect Parts, Inc.142 F. Supp. 259 (D. Mass. 1956)
  5. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Ginsburg228 F.2d 881 (3d Cir. 1956)
  6. Clayton v. Swift & Company132 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. Va. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list