113 F. Supp. 143 - Taylor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2012
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. Worley · Seaboard Air Line Ry Co v. United States · Taylor v. McClintock
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To be capable of effecting a valid change of beneficiary a person should have clearness of mind and memory sufficient to know the nature of the property for which he is about to name a beneficiary, the nature of the act which he is about to perform, the names and identities of those who are the natural objects of his bounty; his relationship towards them, and the consequences of his act, uninfluenced by any material delusions. See 57 Am.Jur., Wills, Section 64; 26 C.J.S. Deeds, § 54(b); Walsh v. Fairhead, Executrix, 215 Ark. 218, 225 , 219 S.W.2d 941 .” ( 113 F.Supp., at p. 148 ).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Applying the law ... to the facts in the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that on April 23, 1944, Darwin P. Taylor did not have sufficient mental capacity to know the nature and consequence of his act in attempting to change the beneficiary of his National [Service] Life Insurance policy and was acting under a material delusion, and that he therefore could not and did not effect a valid change of beneficiary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus, the fact that the plaintiff herein was acquitted of the criminal charge prosecuted against her in the state court is not binding on this Court, but the Court is convinced from the testimony that in shooting her husband the plaintiff was acting in necessary self defense and should not be denied recovery under the policy by reason of that fact.””
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.