Parlato v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Dennen v. Searle (1961), Wiegand v. Heffernan (1976)
2 district · 35 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 Welch v. Henry · Riggs v. Del Drago · Untermyer v. Anderson · Fernandez v. Wiener · Stockdale v. The Insurance Companies
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the federal statute solely for federal purposes effectively imposed this tax upon the decedent’s entire estate, the mere fact that Congress left it to applicable state law governing the devolution of property at death to determine its ultimate impact is insufficient to constitute the proration statute a taxing statute. Not only is the tax imposed by the federal law but its imposition and methods of collection are fixed by that law. They determine the primary obligation and they create an incumbrance on the estate. Nothing the state can do will alter the nature of the obligations created by them, or change the nature of those of the persons bound to pay, or affect in any way the methods of enforcement. All the state can do is determine the way in which the burden so fixed shall ultimately be apportioned among the beneficiaries with such definition of the amounts payable as is incident thereto. ****** “It was neither the purpose nor the effect of the proration statute to raise money for the federal government, and neither before nor after its enactment was the estate tax a tax upon beneficiaries under a will.” [ 136 Conn. 126 , 69 A. 2d 651 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It was neither the purpose nor the effect of the proration statute to raise money for the federal government, and neither before nor after its enactment was the estate tax a tax upon beneficiaries under a will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.