Brantingham v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 542 · 1980
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2003
7 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2041 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056
Relies on Morgan v. Commissioner · Schuster v. Commissioner · Miller v. United States · Dana v. Dana · Estate of Ralph G. May, Mildred K. May 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) A power to consume, invade, or appropriate property for the benefit of the decedent which is limited by an ascertainable standard relating to the health, education, support, or maintenance of the decedent shall not be deemed a general power of appointment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“devote such of the corpus ... as in her judgment is necessary for her maintenance, comfort and happiness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as in her judgment as necessary for her maintenance, comfort and happiness”
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.