Shwab v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

142 federal appellate · 68 district · 80 state decisions

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

1. “laws are not to be considered as applying to cases which arose before their passage unless that intention be clearly declared”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewellyn v. Frick · Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno

2. ““Section 1. A tax, at the rates prescribed in section 2 of this act, is hereby levied upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent, whether in trust or otherwise, to persons, associations, corporations, or bodies politic, of property, real, personal, or mixed, whether tangible or intangible, or any interest therein or income therefrom, by will or the intestate laws of this State, by any order setting apart property and/or granting family allowances pursuant to the probate code, by deed, grant, bargain, sale or gift made in contemplation of the death of the grantor, vendor or donor, or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after such death, whether made before or after the passage of this act. Provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed as subjecting to payment of such tax the escheat of property to the State for the benefit of its common schools. Such tax shall be imposed upon the value of the net estate and transfers at the rates, under the conditions, and subject to the exemptions and limitations hereinafter prescribed.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nichols v. Coolidge · Wilson v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

3. ““The Circuit Court of Appeals, stating the contention of the executors, said that ‘they claimed that the assessment was void as to the half of the joint property which vested in Cornelia (Mrs. Kissam) before the passage of the Act of September 8, 1916, as'amended, and also that the act itself was unconstitutional, as a direct tax upon property without apportionment among. the several states, as required by article 1, section 9, subdivision 4, of the Constitution [U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 4].’ “But this contention was the alternative of the contention which plaintiffs in error also made, that the Act of September 8, 1916, as amended, was not intended to have retrospective operation. And this was the decision of the District Court, the court saying: ‘It is true that section 201 provides that the tax is imposed upon the transfer of the net estate of “every decedent dying after the passage of this act”; but the assumption must be that this relates to estates thereafter created and not to then existing property.’ And the court added: ‘At the time the statute was passed Cornelia Kissam’s interest belonged to her.’ The court further observed: ‘From the structure of the act to say that the measure of the tax is the extent of the interest of both joint tenants is, in effect, to say that a tax will be laid on the interest of Cornelia in respect of which Jonas had in his lifetime no longer either title or control.’ The court rejected that conclusion and denied to the acts of Cong”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacobs v. United States · Home Mutual Insurance v. Commissioner