Bell Consumers, Inc. v. Lay

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding Bivens action foreclosed in light of “the remedies provided by Congress, particularly the right to sue the government for a refund of taxes improperly collected”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
  Supreme Court· 1994-02-23· cited 4,884×
• United States v. Sherwood
  Supreme Court· 1941-03-31· cited 3,675×
• United States v. King
  Supreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 1,604×
• Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & Burrill
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-11-27· cited 1,197×
• Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.
  Supreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 1,037×
• Bob Jones University v. Simon
  Supreme Court· 1974-05-15· cited 743×
• Lonsdale v. United States
  Tenth Circuit· 1990-11-20· cited 263×
• Cool Fuel, Incorporated v. William H. Connett, Etc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1982-08-24· cited 258×
• Wages v. Internal Revenue Service
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-10-09· cited 238×
• Gilbert v. Dagrossa
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-04-05· cited 96×
• James M. Thomas v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-03-13· cited 64×
• Church of Scientology of California v. United States of America and Sandra Baker, Revenue Officer
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-12-12· cited 57×
• Ray E. Vintilla, Carla M. Vintilla v. United States
  Eleventh Circuit· 1991-05-22· cited 50×
• Ferrel v. Brown
  W.D. Washington· 1993-10-19· cited 13×
• Devona Ferrel v. Ann Brown, Seattle District Director of Internal Revenue Timothy A. Towns, Chief, Collection Branch
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-11-25· cited 8×
• Vintilla v. United States
  M.D. Florida· 1990-05-11· cited 2×
• Plant v. Internal Revenue Service
  N.D. Ohio· 1996-09-25· cited 2×

Other cases named Bell Consumers, Inc. v. Lay

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Bell Consumers Inc. v. Lay
  Ninth Circuit· 2003-02-19