Citation network
Saltonstall Vs. Saltonstall
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1928
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
-
U.S. 260 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Saltonstall v. SaltonstallSearch
-
U.S. 260 (1928) Saltonstall v. SaltonstallSearch
-
the enactment of the statute, and the basis of the tax being the value of the gifts at that operative moment. Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
Treasurer and Receiver General of the state, and the trustees. The opinion below is reported sub nom. Saltonstall v. TreasurerSearch
-
Constitution was the basis for the objection and in its opinion sustained the statutes under that instrument. Cissna v. TennesseeSearch
-
Miedreich v. LauensteinSearch
-
See Attorney General v. StoneSearch
-
Minot v. WinthropSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Crocker v. ShawSearch
-
the trust passing to the plaintiffs in error. This construction of the statutes by the state court we accept, Stebbins v. RileySearch
-
U. S. 466 , 205 U. S. 477 , as we do its construction of the trust deed. Nickel v. ColeSearch
-
taxing statutes, these cannot constitutionally be applied to them under the rule laid down by this Court in Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
U. S. 531 . In Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
held that, under the estate tax sections of the Revenue Act of 1919, which tax the privilege of transmission, Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
succession, which also may constitutionally be subjected to a tax by the state whether occasioned by death, Stebbins v. RileySearch
-
supra, or effected by deed, Keeney v. NewSearch
-
tax. So long as the privilege of succession has not been fully exercised, it may be reached by the tax. See Cahen v. BrewsterSearch
-
A power of appointment reserved by the donor leaves the transfer, as to him, incomplete and subject to tax. Bullen v. WisconsinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Saltonstall v. SaltonstallSearch
-
Saltonstall v. TreasurerSearch
-
Stebbins v. RileySearch
-
In Nichols v. CoolidgeSearch
-
Keeney v. NewSearch
-
See Cahen v. BrewsterSearch
-
Bullen v. WisconsinSearch
-
Cissna v. TennesseeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial