Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.2d 787 - De Coppet v. Helvering

De Coppet v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.2d 787 · 1940

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
August 2008
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2008

6 federal appellate ·

501940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 23

Relies on 12 E.H. Smith 493 - Flynn v. . Brooklyn City R.R. Co. · Plimpton v. . Bigelow · Van Brocklen v. . Smeallie · Burrall v. . Bushwick Railroad Company · Hagerman v. Commissioner

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The beneficial interest was as much an appurtenance of the bank shares as an easement is of the servient tenements; it merely gave them an added value, precisely as it would have done, had the Bank been the shareholder. Collectively the same persons must always be equitable owners of the investment shares and shareholders of the Bank, and in the same proportion; there never could be one group holding bank shares, and another holding investment shares. So far as a corporation is the aggregate of its shareholders in respect of their collective rights and obligations, there was but one corporation. We do not see why the situation was different because the bank shareholders could modify the trust by a two-thirds vote, if the trustees agreed; and could terminate it by a three-fourths vote, if they did not. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.