Reinecke v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 172 · 1933
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 30 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 300 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Helvering v. Horst (1940), Helvering v. Stuart (1942)
106 federal appellate · 30 district · 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Lucas v. Earl · Corliss v. Bowers · Old Colony Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co. · Nichols v. Coolidge
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 300 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the grantor of a trust has, at any time during the taxable year, either alone or in conjunction with any person not a beneficiary of the trust, the power to revest in himself title to any part of the corpus of the trust, then the income of such part of the trust for such taxable year shall be included in computing the net income of the grantor.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the trustee is not a trustee of the power of revocation and owes no duty to the beneficiary to resist alteration or revocation of the trust.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The tax was upheld as applied to the corpus of trustb over which the grantor had sole power of revocation. It was, however, condemned as to those where revocation was dependent upon joint action of the grantor and the beneficiary, for the reason that the interest of the beneficiary was adverse and the grantor unable at will to alter or destroy the trust.””
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.