Upton v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Ellis v. Carter (1961), Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. (2011)
20 federal appellate · 2 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. § 23
Relies on Crane v. Commissioner · Gallagher v. Smith · Commissioner v. Netcher · Estate of Mary Jane Little, Deceased, Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Executors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is the only basis on which the court was asked to require such a retention. Petitioners do not suggest any other theory on which the court could have ordered a retention of royalties, since the will required that all net income be distributed to the life beneficiaries. It is also significant that the decree of the Alameda County court contains no provision for the retention of any trust income except for part of the oil well royalties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the [trust] instrument provides that the trustee in determining the distributable income shall first make due allowance for keeping the trust corpus intact by retaining a reasonable amount of the current income for that purpose, the allowable deduction will be granted in full to the trustee. [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... even though such properties are in the nature of wasting assets, provided that the royalty income produced ... be reasonably apportioned or allocated between the present income beneficiaries and the trustees as hereinafter ... provided. ...”
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.