4 Cal. 3d 41 - Flournoy v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
1 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Blumenfeld v. R. H. MacY & Co. (1979), Flournoy v. Beverly Hills National Bank (1974)
1 district · 45 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2041 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056
Relies on 69 Cal. 2d 33 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. · 9 Cal. App. 3d 411 - Fluornoy v. Morse · 1 Cal. App. 3d 657 - Estate of Legatos · 271 Cal. App. 2d 371 - Lewis v. Flournoy · 4 Cal. 3d 34 - Estate of Rosecrans
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The broad definition of a general power of appointment adopted by the California Legislature in 1965 conforms to the definition which has been applied for many years by federal estate tax authorities. (See 26 U.S.C.A. § 2041 , subd. (b)(1).) (2) Indeed, one of the purposes of the California legislative amendments to the Inheritance Tax Law in 1965 was to conform the taxation of powers of appointment under California Inheritance Tax Law to the practice under the federal estate tax laws. (40 State Bar J. (1965) at pp. 600, 606-607.) Two commentators advised the State Bar: `After September 17, 1965 [the effective date of the amendments to the Revenue and Taxation Code, including sections 13551, 13554, 13692, and 13694], the tax aspects of the possession of a general power of appointment will be the same for Federal and for California purposes.... The California taxing authorities will now be able to rely on Federal interpretations for taxation of powers of appointment.' (Martin and Miller (1965) supra, 40 State Bar J. 706, 709; see also Marshall, California State and Local Taxation (1969) supra, § 477, at p. 423; Hewitt and Ward, California and Federal Estate and Tax Planning (1968) supra, ch. VII, §§ 91, 95, at pp. 158, 165; Powell, Powers of Appointment in California (1968) 19 Hastings L.J. 1281 , 1291.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“means a power which is exercisable in favor of the decedent, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate, provided that the following shall not be deemed to be general powers of appointment: (3) (See fn. 3.)”
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.