Whiting v. Squires’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.2d 100 · 1925
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1983
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Daniel Holden v. J a Stratton · Cohen v. Samuels · Cohn v. Malone · In re Orear · Ralph v. Cox
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.
““The limit of the constitutional exemption of an insurance policy on the life of the husband against the claims of his creditors is that the wife or the wife and children take the benefits of a policy payable to her or them as beneficiaries at the death of the insured. The exemption may cover a policy payable to the wife and children with no power of the insured to change the beneficiaries, because in such a policy the wife or the wife and children have a vested interest, and the policy, if paid at all, must be paid to them at the death of the husband. But the exemption does not embrace the surrender value, the property of the husband, of a policy in which he can change the beneficiary at will. ♦X* -}f “Judge Connor, in the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, took a view of the North Carolina Constitution contrary to that we have stated. We think, however, he did not give effect to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Cohen v. Samuels, 245 U.S. 50 , 38 S.Ct. 36 , 62 L.Ed. 143 , and Cohn v. Malone, 248 U.S. 450 , 39 S.Ct. 141 , 63 L.Ed. 352 , and we are unable to concur in his reasoning. “The Legislature could not by statute add to the constitutional exemption. Wharton v. Taylor, 88 N. C. 230 . Therefore it could not make an exemption of the surrender value of the policy which might or might not, according to the will of the husband, fall to the wife or the wife and children as a policy of which they were beneficiaries at the death ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Wolfe
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.