McIntosh v. Wilkinson’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.2d 807 · 1929
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1993
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 1245 · 26 U.S.C. § 964
Relies on Cheatham v. United States · Nichols v. United States · Standard Oil Co. of Ky. v. Hawkins · Buttolph v. Commissioner · Grant v. Rose
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I think it may be assumed that, if a tax statute discloses a purpose to leave an option to taxpayers which will be more favorable either to a single or associated taxpayers (husband and wife, e. g.), if exercised one way rather than another, the statute so favoring them should not be whittled or more rigidly interpreted merely because the exercise of the option one way may cut down the revenue receivable. In other words, if the right be granted, opportunity for fairly exercising it should not be cut off or disparaged, especially when ignorance, misadvice, or what would ordinarily be recognized as excusable error, have entered into its exercise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““ # * * it follows that where an election has been made in ignorance or under a mistake as to the real condition and value of the properties, or under a mistake as to the real nature and extent of the party’s own rights, such a mistake is regarded as one of fact, rather than of law; the election itself is not binding, and a court of equitable powers will permit it to be revoked unless the rights of third persons have intervened which would be interfered with by the -revocation.” (Emphasis supplied.) Pomeroy Equity Jurisprudence (3d Ed.) 512.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.