United States v. Provident Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

133 federal appellate · 21 district · 30 state decisions

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

1. ““The sole question to be considered is, What is the value of the interest to be saved from the tax ? That is a practical question, not concluded by the presumption invoked, but to be determined by ascertaining in terms •of money what the property constituting that interest would bring in the market, subject to such uncertainty as ordinarily attaches to such .an inquiry. (Citations omitted.) Thus stated, the birth of a child to the daughter of the deceased after kis death was so plainly impossibly that, as a practical matter, the hazard disappears from the problem. Gertainly, in the light of our present accurate knowledge in respect of the subject, if the interest had been offered for sale in the open market during the daughter’s lifetime, a suggestion of the possibility of such an event would have, been ignored by every intelligent bidder as utterly destitute of reason.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Lion v. Commissioner · Estate of Gloria A. Lion, Deceased, Morton E. Rome and George L. Clarke, Executors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. ““The foregoing observations are peculiarly apposite to the phase of the subject now under review; for, as suggested by counsel for respondent, the presumption here involved had its origin at a time when medical knowledge was meager, and many centuries before the discovery of anaesthetics and, consequently, before surgical operations of the kind here involved became practicable. It was not until a comparatively recent period, therefore, that the effect of such an operation was disclosed to observation, and the incontrovertible fact recognized that a woman subjected thereto was permanently incapable of bearing children. The government argues that the rule is one of substantive law and evidence to overcome it is inadmissible. Whether in particular instances so-called irrebuttable presumptions are, in a more accurate sense, rules of substantive law rather than true presumptions, is a matter in respect of which a good deal has been said by modern commentators on the law of evidence. 2 Chamberlayne, §§1086, 1087, 1159, et seq.; 5 Wigmore 2d ed. §2492. Compare Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 328, 329 , 76 L. Ed. 772, 780, 781 , 52 S. Ct. 538 ; 2 Thayer, Ev., 351, 352, 540, 541, 545, 546. But it is unnecessary to consider that interesting distinction, since, as will appear, the presumption in question in this instance must be dealt with as open to rebuttal and, therefore, in any aspect of the matter, as a true presumption. * * * *** Relating this obviously correct view to the presump”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 178 Ill. App. 3d 397 - Korten v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.

3. “Moreover, the case does not involve the rule against perpetuities, the devolution of property, the rights or title of living persons in or to property, or any other situation such as constituted the background of practically all the decisions which have sustained the conclusiveness of the presumption. We have for consideration simply a statutory provision exempting from a prescribed tax the value of all bequests, c., made to or for the use of charitable organizations and those which are akin, plainly evincing a legislative policy to encourage such bequests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 N.J. Eq. 325 - Schumacher v. Howard Savings Institution