Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The basic law to be applied in cases of this kind is set forth in Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 758 , as follows: ‘The cases are * * * unanimous that a mere intent to change a beneficiary is not enough. Such an intent must be followed by some affirmative act on the part of the insured evidencing an exercise of the right to change the beneficiary. Where the courts differ is as to the degree of affirmative action necessary to effect a change.’ 165 F.2d at 760 . “Since Mitchell, this court has had frequent occasions to pass on such change of beneficiary questions. In those cases where the proof of intent is clear and convincing, the rationale is that a lesser quantum of proof is required to show the affirmative act to carry out the intent to make the change. See Hawkins v. Hawkins, 5 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 870 . Where evidence of intent is conflicting, the quantum of proof as to the necessary act is greater. See Baker v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 386 F.2d 356 .” 421 F.2d at 635 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. United States · Prudential Insurance v. King