Citation network
Commissioner Vs. Estate of Bosch
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 05, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Commissioner v. EstateSearch
-
of Bosch - 387 U.S. 456 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Commissioner v. EstateSearch
-
of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. EstateSearch
-
when the United States is not made a party to such proceeding. In No. 673, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. EstateSearch
-
to delve into the correctness of that state court decree. In No. 240, Second National Bank of New Haven, Executor v. UnitedSearch
-
by the determination made of such property interest by a state trial court. I (a) No. 673, Commissioner v. EstateSearch
-
for the marital deduction. We do not agree, and reverse. (b) No. 240, Second National Bank of New Haven, Executor v. UnitedSearch
-
Ragan v. MerchantsSearch
-
General Box Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The Tungus v. ScovgaardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Freuler v. HelveringSearch
-
Gallagher v. SmithSearch
-
F.2d 218, 225. The opposite view is expressed in Faulkerson's Estate v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 301 F.2d 231. This view seems to approach that of Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
is binding in such cases only when the judgment is the result of an adversary proceeding in the state court. Pierpont v. C.ISearch
-
was not made a party to either of the state proceedings here and neither had the effect of res judicata, Freuler v. HelveringSearch
-
within the section. Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
King v. OrderSearch
-
where the highest court of the State has not spoken on the point. King v. OrderSearch
-
of Travelers, supra, at 333 U. S. 160 -161. And in West v. A.TSearch
-
issue of state law should a fortiori not be controlling. This is but an application of the rule of Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
of other courts of the State. In this respect, it may be said to be, in effect, sitting as a state court. Bernhardt v. PolygraphicSearch
-
Together with No. 240, Second National Bank of New Haven, Executor v. UnitedSearch
-
Falkerson's Estate v. UnitedSearch
-
It may be claimed that Blair v. CommissionerSearch
-
rights and when property rights rest on state law, as they do here. Since our 1938 decision in Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
decisions, state administrative practice, for the state law that is to be applied. See, e.g., Cities Service Oil Co. v. DunlapSearch
-
Bernhardt v. PolygraphicSearch
-
Court showing that the state law is other than announced by the lower court. See, e.g., Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. FieldSearch
-
West v. A.TSearch
-
Six Companies of California v. JointSearch
-
Stoner v. NewSearch
-
York Life Ins. Co., 311 U. S. 464 . It is true that, in King v. OrderSearch
-
courts to take state law from state court decisions when federal tax consequences turned on state law. In Freuler v. HelveringSearch
-
U.S. at 291 U. S. 45 . The issue of the effect of a state court determination came up again in Blair v. CommissionerSearch
-
Id. 9-10. I would adhere to Freuler v. HelveringSearch
-
supra, and Blair v. CommissionerSearch
-
taxes. But there are some instances in which an adversary proceeding is impossible ( see, e.g., Estate of Darlington v. CommissionerSearch
-
tax the taxpayer or his estate for benefits which he does not have under state law. This aspect is emphasized in Blair v. CommissionerSearch
-
Government attempted to tax the taxpayer for income to which he had no right under state law. In Second National Bank v. UnitedSearch
-
Burnet v. HarmelSearch
-
be resolved by reference to the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel, see generally Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
state courts must be accepted as a part of the state law to which the Act gives force in federal courts, Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Note, The Competence of Federal Courts to Formulate Rules of Decision, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 1084. Compare, e.g., Morgan v. CommissionerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial