Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Cal. 205 - Hunt v. Wicht

Hunt v. Wicht’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
November 1977
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1977 · most notably Saltonstall v. Saltonstall (1928), Coolidge v. Long (1931)

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

1101917192019301940195019601970decided

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 Williams v. Kidd · Bury v. Young · In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Pell · In Re the Appraisal, Under the Transfer Tax Act, of the Estate of Delano · Moore v. Trott

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

  1. ““ The underlying principle which supports the tax is that such right [the right of succession] is not a natural one but is in fact, a privilege only, and that'the authority conferring the privilege may impose conditions upon its exercise. But when the privilege has ripened into a right it is too late to impose conditions of the character in question, and when the right is conferred by a lawfully executed'grant or contract it is property and not privilege, and as such is protected from legislative encroachment by constitutional guaranties.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Concededly such a transfer may be taxed by the state. The difficulty in the case at bar is that at the time the deed was so executed and delivered to Mathilde Wicht in escrow there was no law imposing any tax on such a transfer as was here made.... It is conceded here that the grantee was the wife of the grantor at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed in escrow, and that if reliance must be based on the act of 1893, there is no liability for a tax on account thereof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is the vesting in interest that constitutes the succession, and the question of liability to such a tax must be determined by the law in force at that time. . . . What we have said appears perfectly clear on principle, and is sustained by practically all of the authorities in other states where the .question has arisen.”
    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.