United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.2d 571 · 1934
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably Helvering v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. (1938), First-Mechanics Nat. Bank of Trenton v. Commissioner (1940)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Lusk v. Throop · Howell v. Commissioner · Latty v. Commissioner · Ferguson v. Dickson · Snow v. Schulman
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Revenue Act of 1916 permitted the deduction of the amount of claims against the estate “allowed by the laws of the Jurisdiction * * ⅜ under which the estate is being administered.” c The Acts of 1918 and 1921 contain like provisions.0 ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ The Act of 1924 altered existing law and authorized the deduction of claims against an estate only to the extent that they were “incurred or contracted bona ñde and for a fair consideration in money or money’s worth.”8 Congress had reason to think that the phrase “fair consideration” would be held to comprehend an instance of a promise which was honest, reasonable, and free .from suspicion whether or not the consideration for it was, strictly speaking, adequate.0 The words “adequate and full consideration” were substituted by § 303(a) (1) of the Act of 1926. There must have been some reason for these successive changes. It seems evident that the purpose was to narrow the class of deductible claims, and we are not at liberty to ignore this purpose. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Sec. 804. Relinquishment of Dower, etc., as Consideration. “Section 303(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926 is amended by adding at the end thereof a new sentence to read as follows: “ ‘For the purposes of this title, a relinquishment or promised relinquishment of dower, curtesy, or of a statutory estate created in lieu of dower or curtesy, or of other marital rights in the decedent’s property or estate, shall not be considered to any extent a consideration “in money or money’s worth” ’ ”,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Merrill v. Fahs“The fact that a claim was presented and allowed in the Probate Court and subsequently paid by the executors has no bearing on the deductibility of the claim in question [in computing the net taxable estate].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.