Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 BR 156 - In Re Dunn

In Re Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 4975 (§ 2003 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 38 U.S.C. § 3101

Relies on Segal v. Rochelle · Kokoszka v. Belford · Lines v. Frederick · Busby v. Busby

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 Lubbock National Bank is a fiduciary with the bankrupt as its beneficiary. That fiduciary capacity must predominate over any other relationship which it enjoys with the bankrupt, including the creditor-debtor relationship. As to matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship the trustee (Bank) is under a duty not to profit at the expense of the beneficiary. It has the duty of loyalty and must administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiary. It must keep the trust property separate from its individual property which is not subject to the trust. Above all, it is precluded from asserting any claim in the trust which is antagonistic to the beneficiary. That common law prohibition has been codified and brought forward in the Internal Revenue Code where the interest of a beneficiary in the balance in his account is not forfeitable. 26 U.S.C. § 408 (a)(4). That does not necessarily mean that the beneficiary cannot assign the account to a third person, because one may not create a spendthrift trust for himself. It does not mean that the beneficiary may not withdraw the monies, although there is a penalty imposed by IRS for any such withdrawal. It does mean, however, that the trust fund cannot be forfeited to the Bank and the IRA custodian is precluded from asserting any claim to the assets in an IRA.”
    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.