Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 F.2d 548 - Commissioner v. Glos

Commissioner v. Glos’s Empirical Analysis

123 F.2d 548 · 1941

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
May 2000
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2000

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1401941195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Pelzer · Welch v. Paine · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Taylor · Hopkins v. Magruder

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The sole statutory distinction between present and future interests lies in the question of whether there is postponement of enjoyment of specific rights, powers or privileges which would be forthwith existent if the interest were present.” (Italics ours.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘Future interests’ is a legal term, and includes reversions, remainders, and other interests or estates, whether vested or contingent, and whether or not supported by a particular interest or estate, which are limited) to commerce in use, possession, or enjoyment at some future date or time. * * * ” (Italics ours.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘ * * * the denial of the exemption in the case of gifts of future interests is .dedicated by the apprehended' difficulty, in many instances, of determining the number of eventual ■ donees and the values of their respective gifts.’.””
    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.