Dimock v. Corwin’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1980 · most notably United States v. Jacobs (1939), Bogley v. United States (1975)
14 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Nichols v. Coolidge · Chase Nat Bank of City of New York v. United States · Heiner v. Donnan · Tyler v. United States · Saltonstall v. Saltonstall
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is concluded as to the first question, that there pertained to Mr. Folger, during his life, only the right to render it possible for Mrs. Folger to receive a grant from the Standard Oil Company, and that this did not constitute property of his under section 302 of the law, or subdivision (a), and that the act of naming her as the recipient of the death benefit was not a transfer of property by him to her, so as to fall within subdivisions (c) or (d), 44 Stat. 70 , 71, * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Obviously, the word ‘transfer’ in the statute, * * * cannot be taken in such a restricted sense as to refer only to the passing of particular items of property directly from the decedent to the transferee. It must, we think, at least include the transfer of property procured through expenditures by the decedent with the purpose, effected at his death, of having it pass to another.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant’s argument is that, when the decedent designated his wife to receive the benefit, ‘he transferred to her his beneficial interest in the plan which was intended to take effect in enjoyment at his death.’ “The foregoing betrays a complete misunderstanding of the difference between the annuity payable to Mr. Folger, and the death benefit payable to his wife. As to the latter, he was possessed of nothing during his life, save the capacity to nominate a person to whom, upon his death, the company could grant a sum called a death benefit. * * * ””
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.