Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 F.2d 341 - Wilson v. Kraemer

Wilson v. Kraemer’s Empirical Analysis

190 F.2d 341 · 1951

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
January 1968
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 811

Relies on Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · Helvering v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Rogers' Estate v. Helvering · Helvering v. Grinnell

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

  1. ““Section 1 of the bill amends section 811(f) of the code, relating to estate tax on powers of appointment. The new section 811(f) (1) deals with preexisting powers, i.e., powers created on or before October 21, 1942, the date of enactment of the 1942 act. As to such powers it restores the situation which existed prior to that date, i.e., only the exercise of a general power of appointment is taxed. An amendment by your committee makes it clear that a complete release of a preexisting power at any time is not taxable. “The former statute taxed property ‘passing’ under a general power of appointment exercised by the decedent. This sometimes gave rise to litigation where the decedent appointed part or all of the property to persons who would also have taken it under the terms of the original instrument creating the power. The bill eliminates this possibility by taxing all property with respect to which the decedent has ‘exercised’ a general power of appointment. “With this exception, the intent of the bill is to restore the law regarding preexisting powers as it existed prior to the 1942 act.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * A power to appoint is exercised where the property subject thereto is appointed to the taker in default of appointment regardless of whether or not the appointed interest and the interest in default of appointment are identical, and regardless of whether or not the appointees renounce any right to take under the appointment.”
    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.