Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 U.S. 109 - Lang v. Commissioner

Lang v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

289 U.S. 109 · 1933

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Commissioner v. Brown (1965), Hanover Bank v. Commissioner (1962)

56 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions

3201933194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedLang v. Commissioner (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Crooks v. Harrelson · Tyler v. United States · Barker Painting Co. v. Local No. 734, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, & Paperhangers · William Bend v. Jesse Hoyt

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

  1. “[a]n estate by the entirety is held by the husband and wife in single ownership, by a single title. They do not take by moieties, but both and each take the whole estate, that is to say, the entirety. The tenancy results from the common-law principle of marital unity; and is said to be sui generis. Upon the death of one of the tenants “the survivor does not take as a new acquisition, but under the original limitation, his estate being simply freed from participation by the other * * *»”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) In general. — Except as otherwise provided in this section, the basis of property in the hands of a person acquiring the property from a decedent or to whom the property passed from a decedent shall, if not sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of before the decedent’s death by such person, be— (1) the fair market value of the property at the date of the decedent’s death____ ‡ $ (b) Property acquired from the decedent. — For purposes of subsection (a), the following property shall be considered to have been acquired from or to have passed from the decedent: ‡ 3|t >(C $ ‡ (9) In the case of decedents dying after December 31, 1953, property acquired from the decedent by reason of death, form of ownership, or other conditions (including property acquired through the exercise or non-exercise of a power of appointment), if by reason thereof the property is required to be included in determining the value of the decedent’s gross estate under chapter 11 of subtitle B or under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the legislation here under review results in imposing an unfair burden upon the taxpayer, the remedy is with Congress and not with the courts. Unless there is a violation of the Constitution, Congress may select the subjects of taxation and tax them differently as it sees fit; and if it does so in plain words, as it has done here, the courts are not at liberty to modify the act by construction in order to avoid special hardship. Croolcs v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 61 .”
    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.