Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 TC 520 - Darling v. Commissioner

Darling v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
July 1981
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1981

50196519701980decided

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 Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. State Sternberger · Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, A. F. L. Local 1802 · Smith v. Shaughnessy · Marie H. Hamm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, William Hamm, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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

  1. “that there is considerable doubt as to the proper allocation or distribution of profits derived from the sale or exchange of trust assets and as to the value to be ascribed to replaced property for the purpose of valuing the interest to be received in the exchange. Petitioners may have reserved to themselves all increment in value of property contributed to the trust, depending upon how the entire trust agreement is construed. Since petitioners have the sole discretion to determine whether trust property should be sold and the terms of sale, they could at any time direct a sale or exchange of trust assets at a profit to be received by them if in fact the trust reserved to them such gains. The remainder interest under such circumstances can therefore at best remain constant depending upon the action taken by the petitioners, and the remainder interest may never appreciate in value beyond the date of gift valuation. [James L. Darling, supra at 536 .]”
    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.