Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 CAL2D 191 - Kuchel v. Miller

Kuchel v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 8 Cal. 3d 247 - Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972), 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles (1950)

74 state decisions

24019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Frick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Seaboard Acceptance Corp. v. Shay · 7 Cal. 2d 60 - Anderson v. I. M. Jameson Corp. · Application of Monrovia Evening Post · Armstrong v. Smith

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

  1. “As with a succession statute, death is the 'generating source' for the operation of the inheritance tax, consistent with the commonly accepted theory that such tax is imposed on the right to receive a decedent's property. (28 Am.Jur. 9 and 10, p. 12.) While such tax is assessed upon the value of property so transmitted, the rates and exemptions are based upon the relationship of the recipient to the decedent. (28 Am.Jur. 4, p. 9.) Accordingly, a cardinal purpose of the inheritance tax law would be to coordinate its assessment as closely as possible with the substantive probate law regulating the distribution of the decedent's estate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Unlike the earlier legislation which had been declared unconstitutional, this statute (section 201.5) does not purport to rearrange property rights between living husbands and wives in marital property brought into this state upon their change of domicile to California. On the contrary, it is a succession statute apparently enacted in pursuance of the theory of the dissenting opinion in the Thornton case . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “it is the function of the courts to construe and apply the [inheritance tax] law as it is enacted and not to add thereto nor detract therefrom.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.