Blodgett v. Silberman’s Empirical Analysis
277 U.S. 1 · 1928
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 21 district · 172 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 445 later decisions (93 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Raines v. Byrd (1997), Coleman v. Miller (1939)
58 federal appellate · 21 district · 172 state decisions — followed in 35 states
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 Knowlton v. Moore · Coe v. Town of Errol · Pullman's Palace-Car Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Gloucester Ferry Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
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 445 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At common law the maxim ‘mobilia sequunter personam’ applied. There has been discussion and criticism of the application and enforcement of that maxim, but it is so fixed in the common law of this country and of England, in so far as it relates to intangible property, including choses in action, without regard to whether they are evidenced in writing or otherwise and whether the papers evidencing the same are found in the state of the domicile or elsewhere, and is so fully sustained by eases in this and other courts, that it must be treated as settled in this jurisdiction whether it approve itself to legal philosophic test or not. Further, this principle is not to be shaken by the inquiry into the question whether the transfer of such intangibles, like specialties, bonds or promissory notes, is subject to taxation in another jurisdiction. As to that we need not inquire. It is not the issue in this case. For present purposes it suffices that intangible personalty has such a situs at the domicile of its owner that its transfer on his death may be taxed there.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It thus clearly appears that both under the partnership agreement and under the laws of the state of New York the interest of the partner was the right to receive a sum of money equal to his share of the net value of the partnership after a settlement, and this right to his share is a debt owing to him, a chose in action, and an intangible. We concur with the supreme court of errors that as such it was subject to the transfer tax of Connecticut.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is very plain, therefore, that the interest of the decedent in the partnership of William Openhym & Sons was simply a right to share in what would remain of the partnership assets after its liabilities were satisfied. It was merely an interest in the surplus, a chose in action. It is an intangible, and carries with it a right to an accounting."”
2 later decisions 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.