Bryan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2017
3 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2041 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056
Relies on Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Balls v. Dampman · Pope v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Mercantile Trust Co. v. Bergdorf & Goodman Co. · Lamkin v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Maryland law on powers of testamentary appointment is unusual if not unique. A power to appoint or dispose of property by will, unrestricted as to beneficiaries, as for example, ‘in such manner as she may see fit’ (Balls v. Dampman, 69 Md. 390, 391 , 16 A. 16, 17 [ (1888) ]) or ‘to such person or persons as she may limit, nominate, and appoint’ (Lamkin v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 192 Md. 472, 475 , 64 A.2d 704, 705 [ (1949) ]), is called in Maryland a general power, as it is in most jurisdictions, but unlike most jurisdictions, Maryland holds that such a power does not authorize the holder of the power to appoint to him[- or her]self, to his [or her] own estate or to his [or her] creditors unless the power in terms so authorizes (with the exception that where the donee and donor of the power are the same person, an appointment may be made to a creditor, Wyeth v. Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 176 Md. 369 , 4 A.2d 753 [ (1939) ]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vito v. Grueff
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.