Case Citator › James v. United States

James v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
366 U.S. 213
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
96 of 96
Citing cases (total)
855
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. James v. United States remains good law: all 96 flagged citations have been read, and no adverse treatment was confirmed. The reviewed opinions applied James's rule that embezzled funds are taxable income, its retroactive civil-tax consequences, or its conclusion that criminal willfulness could not be shown for conduct occurring while Commissioner v. Wilcox controlled.
More on how this was screened

Most flagged citations were history statements reporting James's own overruling of Wilcox. Other nearby adverse language treated unrelated precedents, including taxpayer arguments the courts rejected. A 1950 opinion predating James was a citation collision, and the apparent Supreme Court refusals to follow were citations to a separate James opinion within a partial dissent in an unrelated jury-size case.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

855 later cases cite James v. United States; 96 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on James v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 96 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads James v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace