Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Crooks Vs. Harrelson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 24, 1930

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

29 entries 3 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Commissioner of Immigration Vs. Gottlieb US Supreme Court · May 26, 1924
  2. United States Vs. Field US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1921
  3. Chung Fook Vs. White US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1924
  4. U.S. 55 (1930) U.S. Supreme Court Crooks v. Harrelson
    Search
  5. U.S. 55 (1930) Crooks v. Harrelson
    Search
  6. subject to the latter, it forms no part of the gross estate for the purpose of the federal estate tax. United States v. Field
    Search
  7. discriminating terms of the statute. A similar question was presented to this Court and decided in United States v. Field
    Search
  8. The principle sought to be applied is that Page 282 U. S. 60 followed by this Court in Holy Trinity Church v. United
    Search
  9. the law upon that ground, the absurdity must be so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense. Compare Pirie v. Chicago
    Search
  10. there must be something to make plain the intent of Congress that the letter of the statute is not to prevail. Treat v. White
    Search
  11. power as to call, rather, for great caution and circumspection in order to avoid usurpation of the latter. Monson v. Chester
    Search
  12. King v. Commissioners
    Search
  13. Abley v. Dale
    Search
  14. L.J. (1851) N.S. Pt. 2, Vol. 20, 233, 235. And see generally Chung Fook v. White
    Search
  15. regard to which the general rule requiring adherence to the letter applies with peculiar strictness. In United States v. Merriam
    Search
  16. we quoted with approval the words of Lord Cairns in Partington v. Attorney
    Search
  17. of administration, but an expense incidental to the sale of the lands. The Missouri court of appeals, in Elstroth v. Young
    Search
  18. Page 282 U. S. 63 We have not failed to note the decision of the Court of Claims in Steedman v. United
    Search
  19. States, 63 Ct.Cls. 226, as well as the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in Bartlett v. Commissioner
    Search
  20. U.S. Supreme Court Crooks v. Harrelson
    Search
  21. Holy Trinity Church v. United
    Search
  22. Compare Pirie v. Chicago
    Search
  23. Treat v. White
    Search
  24. Monson v. Chester
    Search
  25. In United States v. Merriam
    Search
  26. Partington v. Attorney
    Search
  27. Elstroth v. Young
    Search
  28. Steedman v. United
    Search
  29. Bartlett v. Commissioner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial