Danforth Foundation v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““[T]he evidence presented fails to show that the programs adopted will, as budgeted, begin to use expected annual income, let alone that accumulated before the questioned period. Furthermore, the record is absent any showing of attempt to relate the programs to anticipated income. Expenditures for programs designed by the end of 1951 could not be expected to exceed $300,000.-00 in charitable grants, and under all programs designed by the end of 1952, expenditures could not be expected to exceed $500,000.00 in the immediate future. Further projection of probable charitable grants under programs of the Foundation would require speculation. Meanwhile, subsequent annual income could reasonably be anticipated to exceed $1,000,000.00. The conclusion that the unexpended income of $1,104,990.98 in 1951 and $978,059.-24 in 1952, making a total accumulation of $6,394,739.46 by the end of 1952, constitute unreasonable accumulations is inescapable.” 222 F. Supp. 761 , 768.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Danforth Foundation v. United States

2. ““There can be no doubt that the trustees’ decisions to accumulate income were made in good faith and in anticipation of early formulation of expansive programs which they believed would more than use the accumulated funds. In the spring of 1951, Donald Danforth and Dorothy Compton were so convinced of the Foundation’s future monetary needs to carry out its plans in the years to come that they requested their father to change his will to leave their shares of his estate, which would have totaled $7,249,440.00, to the Foundation. However, it is not the subjective beliefs and aspirations of the trustees which will define reasonableness under the statute.” 222 F.Supp. 761 , 767.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Danforth Foundation v. United States

3. “‘""This Foundation is formed solely and only for purely charitable, educational and religious purposes and to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Danforth Foundation v. United States